Your Religion and Stance on Gay Rights

[edwest2]

To dianaiad -

That is what the gay rights advocates want to do; by asking the government to allow gay marriage, they are attempting to force us to adhere to their standards. By fighting against it, we are attempting to deny them rights that have nothing to do with religion or morals

That is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read here. Where did marriage come from? Why is marriage more moral than fornication?

Why do you want marriage to become something it’s never been in the United States? You believe in your beliefs but you cannot propose your beliefs, especially regarding marriage, as the most normative?

There is no advantage to civil marriage. None. And who would create your idea of civil marriage? The government?

Here is an example of “My government is evil or repressive unless, of course, it does something I want it to do.”

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[presidentjlh]

I don’t know, I mean, I’m supposed to be actively agaist gay marriage, but I just honestly don’t care, but that’s not right either, I guess.

I hate it. There’s always stupid issues that I don’t want to have to choose a side in, but I feel I have to.

I don’t want to disagree with the Church, I just…I don’t know, is a civil union so bad? As long as the Church isn’t being forced to marry homosexuals (that would definitely be bad) I just don’t really want to care.

I assume this probably is a mortal sin, and I best go to confession now. sigh

 

[dianaiad]

To dianaiad -

dianaiad:

That is what the gay rights advocates want to do; by asking the government to allow gay marriage, they are attempting to force us to adhere to their standards. By fighting against it, we are attempting to deny them rights that have nothing to do with religion or morals

That is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read here. Where did marriage come from? Why is marriage more moral than fornication?

Is it not your contention that marriage is from God? I’d certainly agree with you if it is…but doesn’t that make it a RELIGIOUS matter?

Why do you want marriage to become something it’s never been in the United States? You believe in your beliefs but you cannot propose your beliefs, especially regarding marriage, as the most normative?

Oh, come on. I"m a Mormon. For the first 70 or so years of our existance, we were polygamous. While the CoJCoLDS is not polygamous and hasn’t been for over a century, that’s one of the first things people think of when they hear “Mormon,” and it’s certainly true that there are Mormon offshoot belief systems that still are; witness the FLDS.

As well, the CoJCoLDS believes in a ‘hierarchy’ of sorts in marriage. We believe in an “Until death do you part” type—exactly the sort of marriage you believe in–but we also believe in a more permanent sort; for time “and all eternity.” When LDS couples marry, or are ‘sealed’ in a Temple, we are married for eternity. Death, we believe, does not disolve that relationship. Marriage, between a man and a woman, we believe is vital to our eventual salvations.

There is nothing ‘normative’ about either position. Do you want us to have the power to force YOU to accept our view of marriage in your own faith?

There is no advantage to civil marriage. None. And who would create your idea of civil marriage? The government?

That’s "civil unions,’ not 'civil marriage. The whole point would be that ‘marriage,’ since it comprises the ideas of morality and the relationship a couple has in the eyes of God, would be strictly a religious matter, with no legal force or advantages.

A civil union, on the other hand, is simply a matter of contract. The people who participate in one of those have the rights only a secular, mortal, government can give: things like survivor rights, insurance rights, property rights, tax advantages—nothing that has anything to do with religion or faith.

I think that most faiths would require a couple to have both the civil union and the marriage, because the civil union would represent the earthly commitment required of a marriage. However, separating the two concepts would allow different faiths to say “I don’t care WHAT sort of tax advantages the government gives you, you ain’t married and we don’t have to treat you as if you were.” On the other hand, there are faiths…even Christian faiths…that wouldn’t have any trouble at all accepting (and performing) gay marriages. If it doesn’t force US to change our policies towards them, what difference does it make?

After all, the only thing we should be able to do is to teach. Teach others truth, and let them make the decisions. My grandmother taught me the following saying: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” (with apologies to Dale Carnegie, Mary Wolstonecraft and Samuel Butler, I still think of my Grandma when I think of that saying…)

The idea is to keep the government out of our business…but that means we have also got to stay out of each other’s.

Here is an example of “My government is evil or repressive unless, of course, it does something I want it to do.”

No, as a matter of fact, that’s your position. You are the one who wants the government to ban gay marriage without considering a different option. Since both your solution and mine would leave US free to believe and practice what we wish, I can only consider that an intransigent refusal to consider a solution that does not force everyone ELSE to our POV is simply a need to control what they do, how they think and the way they live—even when ‘they’ don’t believe as we do.

…and that harks back to the control issue. What I propose gets us what we want for our own beliefs—but unfortunately it also gets the gays what they say they want, which is equal legal rights. Doing it my way, they can even get married in a faith that recognizes that marriage, even if you and I would not.

However, most of the gays I talk to don’t want that. They not only want the legal rights–they want to shove their lifestyles down OUR throats, and to force us to acknowledge that their lifestyles are moral and ‘just as good as’ or ‘just the same as’ traditional heterosexual marriage.

Well, that ain’t going to happen.

Folks like you, on the other hand, say that they want to NOT be forced to acknowledge gays as married…but that’s not quite true either. Y’all seem to want (as your posts seem to indicate) to force gays to pay for their lifestyles both through God’s judgement–and yours. Heaven forbid that a gay couple should have any of the legal rights that married folk have; why, civilization would fall into total chaos if one gay partner can own property jointly with another, or have survivor/insurance/custody rights!

Well, “He that complies against his will…Is of his own opinion still…” (Butler) I utterly fail to understand how forcing someone who doesn’t agree with you about religion to obey YOUR religious beliefs is going to do any good whatsoever. Trust me, it won’t convert him!

there is, after all, nothing that cements an opinion like opposition to it…and THAT old saying is mine.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know, I mean, I’m supposed to be actively agaist gay marriage, but I just honestly don’t care, but that’s not right either, I guess.

I hate it. There’s always stupid issues that I don’t want to have to choose a side in, but I feel I have to.

I don’t want to disagree with the Church, I just…I don’t know, is a civil union so bad? As long as the Church isn’t being forced to marry homosexuals (that would definitely be bad) I just don’t really want to care.

I assume this probably is a mortal sin, and I best go to confession now. sigh

I have no idea whether it’s a mortal sin or not.

On the other hand, I’m actively against gay marriage…and I do mean adamantly against it. However, I don’t see any reason why gay couples shouldn’t have the same legal rights that the government assigns married couples. I don’t have the right to deny them these simply because they don’t agree with my religious beliefs. (shrug)

…hence, my idea of separating the concepts.

As for you…after all, you aren’t proposing that CATHOLICISM accept and marry gay couples. are you…or proposing that gay Catholics be allowed all the advantages in religion that heterosexual couples have? If not, where is the sin?

I honestly don’t know the answer to that.

As for me, my suggestion is the result of my own deeply held belief that religions be allowed to practice their own beliefs without interference from other religions==or government entities, for that matter. I don’t WANT my faith to have to battle lawsuit after lawsuit made by gay couples who, once ‘married’ according to the government, figure that this means that Mormons have to treat them exactly the way we treat heterosexual married couples, from employment to Temple attendance. I don’t want Catholicism to be the target of lawsuit after lawsuit from gay Catholics about service, taking communion…whatever. You know that this WILL happen. Shoot, some of those suits are already written and ready to be filed.

I also do not think that any church has the right to force people who do not believe as it does to comply with its more’s and policies.

(shrug)

But then, I"m a bit of a libertarian (conservative side.) I’m a lot on the odd side.

 

[presidentjlh]

Oh, and before anyone wonders why the issue of whether or should care or not is important to me, it’s because I wish to become a politician.

Hopefully, the issue will already be decided by that time, but…I don’t know.

I do care in some ways, but I do worry about even getting into office so as to support my family, and…ARGH!

I don’t want to sacrifice my principles for political expediency, but if I don’t even get voted in it doesn’t matter anyways. But I can’t say one thing and do another. I mean, I’d vote against allowing gay marriage, but I wouldn’t mind if they get civil unions, but I guess the Church thinks that’s wrong as well? I swear, I’m going to burnout from all this c**p.

I am so sick of these darn moral dilemmas. It’s unbelievably tiring, I don’t even have the same energy I used to, I feel like I’m 40 and I’m only 18.

 

[edwest2]

Very strange. I have no idea why you pose your argument here. This is not a judicial body.

I am not suggesting force. When John McCain appeared on Ellen Degeneres’ show during the last Presidential campaign, he was open to contracts, she insisted on marriage. That is precisely what gay people want – 100% equal just like heterosexual marriage.

You ignore how things got this way at your peril. 1973 - a nonscientific vote set this off.

Here is a Statement from the Catholic Medical Association:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[dianaiad]

Oh, and before anyone wonders why the issue of whether or should care or not is important to me, it’s because I wish to become a politician.

Oh, dear…you are headed for trouble for sure…an 18 year old who WANTS to become a politician?

Hopefully, the issue will already be decided by that time, but…I don’t know.

You are only 18. Trust me, it won’t be 'decided by that time," no matter how old you are when you take office. Sorry about that.

I do care in some ways, but I do worry about even getting into office so as to support my family, and…ARGH!

I don’t want to sacrifice my principles for political expediency, but if I don’t even get voted in it doesn’t matter anyways. But I can’t say one thing and do another. I mean, I’d vote against allowing gay marriage, but I wouldn’t mind if they get civil unions, but I guess the Church thinks that’s wrong as well? I swear, I’m going to burnout from all this c**p.

I am so sick of these darn moral dilemmas. It’s unbelievably tiring, I don’t even have the same energy I used to, I feel like I’m 40 and I’m only 18.

Ok, take a deep breath. First…if you haven’t graduated from high school yet, do that. Then go to college and become a lawyer. No. Scratch that. Get a business degree and run a business for a few years. THEN run for office.

…and for heaven’s sake, NEVER put an ‘s’ at the end of 'anyway!" (sorry, English teacher coming out in me.)

That’ll nail you faster than saying “Nu cue ler” instead of “nuclear.”

 

[presidentjlh]

Yeah, I know, but I have always had this great interest in politics, and it just feels like that is where God is calling me.

President Grover Cleveland said on his deathbed, “I’ve tried so hard to do right.” That’s what I aim to do. I wish to do right, and I try so very hard to do right, but it’s so difficult to be perfect. There are so many factors to every decision that make everything more complex than it seems. I want to follow the Church as I’m supposed to as a Catholic, but I would also have a duty to the United States of America as a representative. I know my duty to God is above that of my duty to country, but, I just am so hounded by dilemmas. Not many 18 year olds constantly contemplate the consequences of political decisions.

I wish to do both the will of the Church and the will of the United States, but they sometimes seem so opposed. I am pro-life, like the Church asks, and I try to encourage people to be good. But I also must stay true to the principles of liberty. I am very pro-free speech and freedom of religion, and although I am conservative both socially and economically, socially I am a little more moderate.

I was always told, “Trust your conscience,” but what if my conscience goes against something that I’m supposed to believe?

 

[dianaiad]

Very strange. I have no idea why you pose your argument here. This is not a judicial body.

I think I did it here because the name of the thread is “Your Religion and Stance on Gay Rights.” Odd as it may appear to you, sir, it would seem to be the appropriate venue to make this argument, containing as it does my religion and stance on gay rights.

I am not suggesting force.

Well, yeah, you are. When you advocate regulating behavior by using the law of the land, that’s exactly what you are suggesting.

When John McCain appeared on Ellen Degeneres’ show during the last Presidential campaign, he was open to contracts, she insisted on marriage. That is precisely what gay people want – 100% equal just like heterosexual marriage.

You didn’t read what I wrote, did you? You know, the part where I mentioned that the gays I speak to don’t like my idea of separating the concepts any more than you do, because they want to shove THEIR lifestyles down our collective throats in order to force us to acknowledge them and accept them as ‘equal to’ or ‘the same as’ the marriages we believe are what God intends?

They want equal rights? Well, my proposal would give them exactly that. EVERYBODY, gay or straight, would have civil unions in order to have government granted legal rights and protections, and ‘marriage’ would be handled by their respective faiths. That way no religion could be legally required to recognize the marriage of anybody, but as long as the participants in the civil union could find a faith which approves of them, everybody could get married.

Everybody wins…

Unfortunately, the reaction to my suggestion is proving that nobody really wants what they claim they do. Gays don’t want ‘equal rights.’ The religious who don’t believe that gay marriage is actually ‘marriage’ don’t really want to be allowed to live their own beliefs without threat of legal action or force. It’s not enough for either side to win what they claim they want. They really want to utterly defeat and destroy the other side.

You ignore how things got this way at your peril. 1973 - a nonscientific vote set this off.

Here is a Statement from the Catholic Medical Association:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed

Ed, what if I told you that I agree with this article, and that homosexuality is entirely a choice, and that nobody is 'born that way?" ( I don’t, quite, but…) What difference does that make?

In fact, that makes my point even more important. People MUST be allowed to make their own choices. Only when their choices endanger the lives and freedom of others do any of us have a right to interfere. That’s why you cannot equate gay marriage with drunk driving.

As it happens, I don’t really know whether there is any aspect of biology in homosexuality. It doesn’t make a difference. What people DO about it is still their choice.

They can remain celibate, if nothing else. They must choose between the ‘natural man’ and their beliefs, but whatever their choice, it is THEIR choice.

Look…I don’t drink. It’s against my religion. We don’t even use wine in our Sacrament (communion.) What if we passed a law telling Catholics that they can not buy alcohol for any purpose whatsoever? Do you think we have the right to do that?

Well, me neither.

I don’t think you have the right to pass a law requiring me to drink wine instead of water for the Sacrament, either.

It’s the same principle. Unfortunately, judging from your post and those of others, (including gays) I don’t think that many can see the correlation.

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah, I know, but I have always had this great interest in politics, and it just feels like that is where God is calling me.

President Grover Cleveland said on his deathbed, “I’ve tried so hard to do right.” That’s what I aim to do. I wish to do right, and I try so very hard to do right, but it’s so difficult to be perfect. There are so many factors to every decision that make everything more complex than it seems. I want to follow the Church as I’m supposed to as a Catholic, but I would also have a duty to the United States of America as a representative. I know my duty to God is above that of my duty to country, but, I just am so hounded by dilemmas. Not many 18 year olds constantly contemplate the consequences of political decisions.

I wish to do both the will of the Church and the will of the United States, but they sometimes seem so opposed. I am pro-life, like the Church asks, and I try to encourage people to be good. But I also must stay true to the principles of liberty. I am very pro-free speech and freedom of religion, and although I am conservative both socially and economically, socially I am a little more moderate.

I was always told, “Trust your conscience,” but what if my conscience goes against something that I’m supposed to believe?

It’s a very hard road you are thinking about traveling. May God bless you…

…and someday you’ll have to tell me how it worked out for you.

Diana

 

[edwest2]

have civil unions in order to have government granted legal rights and protections, and ‘marriage’ would be

So, you want the government to do something, right? Have you contacted them? Where is this going?

You will vote against gay marriage but civil unions is not part of the gay “marriage equality” agenda. I know you know that. So, where are we?

Once again, I see the “everybody wins” mantra. My religion, and I think your religion is not advocating that any of its followers look into other people’s bedrooms or grill them on their sex lives, right? But what happens when I go to the voting booth and gay sex is right there? Yes, I know, job one was getting all those sodomy laws repealed, but step two was raising gay sex to 100% heterosexual equivalence.

As you can see by going to the site massresistance.org, gay rights includes coercive efforts to get little kids in grade school indoctrinated way before their own psychological and emotional maturity kicks in, with the full power and backing of the state. Mormons cannot opt out. Does that appeal to you?

As I watch this issue unfold, most ‘progress’ for gay rights has been through the courts. That is where this will end up.

You may think I want to force people to act a certain way. I suggest you read some actual case law. WE The People decide how we should live, as a Society. All you’re talking about is a solution that is no solution at all if you believe in right and wrong. Either there is an actual basis for establishing right and wrong or there isn’t.

Not too long before this same-sex marriage thing started, I saw an article in the paper that stated there were no absolutes. This is a fundamentally flawed approach to life.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[dianaiad]

So, you want the government to do something, right? Have you contacted them? Where is this going?

Excuse me, but weren’t you the one who just told me that since this thread is not a court of law, I had no business airing my opinion on it?

Where it is going is precisely…here. You know, where the thread is about ‘your religion and stance on civil rights,’ what I do elsewhere isn’t at issue. However, as you might have guessed from my references to responses from people on both sides of this issue, I haven’t exactly kept silence.

However, to put it even more plainly, I don’t believe that gays CAN marry, because marriage is an institution of God, and I don’t believe that God sanctions such marriages. However, most gays do not share my beliefs, and I have an intrinsic and deeply held aversion to using force–even the force of the law of the land–to make other people adhere to my beliefs and practices.

I also do NOT see how denying gay couples strictly legal rights allowed by the government is going to advance my cause with them. As soon as you let the government interfere with religion, ANY religion, it WILL interfere with yours–and as a Catholic you should know THAT one from the bones out!

The only solution that I see is to get government completely out of marriage…that is, out of the moral and religious aspect of it. Since it is the religions who claim that ‘marriage’ is a divinely sanctioned thing, with certain expectations of morality involved, then religion should be in charge of marriage…and marriage should have only religious ramifications; that is, each religion should be able to decide who is, and who is not, married according to their doctrines. I figure that for mainstream Christianty (and Catholics and Mormons…) it would mean a couple who got the civil union AND the religious ceremony (hey, they’ve been doing that for centuries in Europe!). They would have their own ideas for who was eligible for the religious ceremony. Shoot, many of them might well call a civil union a marriage—but the point is, they wouldn’t HAVE to.

That keeps the government out of our religious business. It keeps, frankly, the fundamentalists out of mine…

[You will vote against gay marriage but civil unions is not part of the gay “marriage equality” agenda. I know you know that. So, where are we?

I don’t know where YOU are, but I"m a lone voice in the wilderness, I’m afraid.

[Once again, I see the “everybody wins” mantra. My religion, and I think your religion is not advocating that any of its followers look into other people’s bedrooms or grill them on their sex lives, right? But what happens when I go to the voting booth and gay sex is right there? Yes, I know, job one was getting all those sodomy laws repealed, but step two was raising gay sex to 100% heterosexual equivalence.

eeeww. You honestly believe that passing a law against gay sex is going to make gays think 'oh, better not, I’ll get a ticket?" It hasn’t worked for adulterers and fornicators for millenia, and it won’t work now. The only thing that DOES work is religious and social (not legal) consequences, coupled with an understanding of what God wants plus self control.

You COULD put a line in a civil union contract that says that sex outside the contract (adultery) means that the other party gets everything. That might work (modern divorce law lets adulterers get half of everything now, mostly). Religions get to excommunicate.

Personally, I’m a little too worried about my own salvation and sins to get all excited about what someone else does behind HIS bedroom window.

[As you can see by going to the site massresistance.org, gay rights includes coercive efforts to get little kids in grade school indoctrinated way before their own psychological and emotional maturity kicks in, with the full power and backing of the state. Mormons cannot opt out. Does that appeal to you?

You are now talking about an entirely different thing than ‘gay marriage,’ and as I’ve said, you bet we can opt out. I am a fervent supporter of homeschool and alternative education.

[As I watch this issue unfold, most ‘progress’ for gay rights has been through the courts. That is where this will end up.

Yes, it will.

[You may think I want to force people to act a certain way. I suggest you read some actual case law. WE The People decide how we should live, as a Society. All you’re talking about is a solution that is no solution at all if you believe in right and wrong. Either there is an actual basis for establishing right and wrong or there isn’t.

Not too long before this same-sex marriage thing started, I saw an article in the paper that stated there were no absolutes. This is a fundamentally flawed approach to life.

Oh, I do believe that there are absolutes. The problem is, I’m not so certain that your absolutes are THE absolutes. As I have already stated, once you allow the government to interfere in the religious practices of others, it WILL mess with yours.

Diana
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[edwest2]

To Diana,

I will the say that the issue here is gay sex and that’s all. I vote for keeping Marriage exactly the way it is now.

I know that God will not force anyone to love Him.

God bless,
Ed

 

[dianaiad]

To Diana,

I will the say that the issue here is gay sex and that’s all. I vote for keeping Marriage exactly the way it is now.

I know that God will not force anyone to love Him.

God bless,
Ed

Actually, it’s about gay sex for you. For me, it’s about keeping intact my right to worship as I please, and for my faith to define marriage as we believe marriage actually is. Right now gays want to force all of us to accept their relationships as equal to heterosexual marriages. We cannot, of course, do that if it is against our doctrines.

…the thing is, while I see, just barely possibly, the idea that Catholicism MIGHT be able to consider gay marriage (if you will consider a marriage between two infertile people as valid, then…???) I don’t see it happening, mind you, but there is the barest possibility from within the doctrine that I have seen. Mormons will never, ever, be able to do that. The concept is too diametrically opposed to the basic foundation of our idea of salvation.

On the other hand, not everybody is LDS. While I have a deep and abiding wish to keep everybody else from messing with what we do, I also don’t figure we have the right to make other people toe our line. If they don’t share our beliefs, why should they be forced to abide by our rules? Would you, for instance, appreciate it if we got laws passed against coffee, tea, and alcohol?

Frankly, sir, gay sex is none of your business if the gays involved do not share your religious beliefs. What IS your business is when their practices impinge upon your beliefs. So yes, you need to work on the way your children are taught in school. You need to be active in keeping gay rights activists from forcing you to act against your beliefs.

…and that’s what my proposal would do.

Unfortunately, gay rights activists do want to force us to approve of their lifestyles…and you want to force them to adhere to your beliefs. I don’t see much difference between the two, here.

Diana

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Just wanted to throw my two cents in here. I am a believer in Sacramental marriage, and in the Catholic teachings on marriage.

I am also a proponent of marriage privatization. I think state marriage licences are not a positive thing for multiple reasons and I believe in a way they are actually disrespectful of the Sacrament of Matrimony. The State does not have the authority to define marriage. God does, He created it, it’s His gift to us. We have the right to it given by Him.

Think, for example all of the people (Elizabeth Taylor comes to mind) who have been “married” 3, 4, even 5 times! Are they really married to all those people? No! Of Course Not!!! Someone cannot have 5 valid marriages! Only in the eyes of a government as messed up as ours can this be acknowledged in any way as valid marriage. Not in God’s eyes nor in the eyes of any orthodox Christian church can this ever happen. Two men, two women, same story. It simply is not a marriage, no matter what stamp anyone puts on it. Lack of valid matter, period.

In a State marriage license, the State actually, in my opinion, takes on the role that is supposed to be reserved for our Lord and Church authorities. When the State issues you a marriage license they are giving their permission for you to marry. The State does not have this authority, they cannot tell me if I can marry or not, it is not their decision or their right. My fear is that one day our government could become so discriminatory against those who hold any religious belief that they stop giving people of faith marriage licenses. Yes it could come to this, deeming that religious freedom is a detriment to society and that religious people should not teach their faith to children that they would have as a result of the marriage. This is not beyond the reach of government.

I do not understand why marriage licenses issued by the State have become such a Holy Grail to people. Who cares what the state thinks about my marriage?

I care about what my pastor, church, and the Lord think about it. For centuries people did not have marriage licenses and marriage was just as much of a Sacrament, just as Holy and dignified as it always has been since Christ elevated it to that. People had legal contracts who were married that spelled out what their agreement was. These contracts were approved by their religious instituation or lack thereof, signed and notorized, and were considered legally binding. Society functioned just fine without State issued marriage licenses for many many centuries. Was society falling apart so drastically that we needed to put this policy (marriage licenses) into effect? Wow, look at how much good it did. Marriage is so respected now in our society as a result of these laws.

By giving the government the power to define marriage we have now given it the power to REDEFINE it as they see fit, and then force it on us with the law. It has already happened in several states, and it WILL happen in more.

Just my two cents.

your friendly neighborhood libertarian,
Josh

 

[Nominefili]

This question is open to all.

Me personally, am Agnostic, a bit Skeptical yet optimistic and open to the spiritual ideas of others.

I see no issue with homosexuals, and think that they deserve the exact same right as heterosexuals under the law.

However, I don’t believe the state has the right to say what “marriage” is, and needs to name it’s current marriages “civil unions” for all types of partnerships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Marriage is a very different meaning to people. To some it means the holy union of one man and one woman. To others it may mean absolutely nothing. To me it means a vow of commitment between two consenting peoples who share their love for each other faithfully, a bond that has lasted since the dawn of man.

This is open to people of all different religions (or lack of) and opinions.

The union and bond of marriage is not an created by the State. Never has been, never will be. Marriage is ordained by God in Genesis, and further revealed through the Scriptures, and even spoken of by our dear Lord Himself.

The fact that the State chooses to ratify marriages, to offer tax benefits, create marital privilege in legal proceedings and alter privacy laws and hospital visitation is fine, but has little to do with actual, Biblical marriage. It’s more for the sake of order that we allow the state to regulate marriage.

If the State chooses to allows homosexuals to ‘marry’, I will be disappointed, but it’s fine. It’s not actually a marriage, in the proper sense of the word, anyway.

 

[edwest2]

All I’m seeing here is the same thing I’ve read on some gay forums: get the State out of the Marriage business. Same sex marriage never existed in the United States, OK? This whole idea of the government not interfering with religion is just a dodge. Why is this question on the ballot? Why didn’t gay people just go to the church of whatever or some guy who can marry people? It’s because they had to get all the sodomy laws repealed first. Step two: we’ll do what we want.

In Massachusetts, right now, you can see the final results.

Here’s what the Vatican has said:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[dianaiad]

By giving the government the power to define marriage we have now given it the power to REDEFINE it as they see fit, and then force it on us with the law. It has already happened in several states, and it WILL happen in more.

Just my two cents.

your friendly neighborhood libertarian,
Josh

Yep, that about sums it up. I DO believe that the government has the right to determine strictly legal and mortal rights and contracts, but that is not the same thing as defining what ‘marriage’ is.

So, amen and amen, and I’m about to declare myself an official libertarian, as well.

 

[dianaiad]

The union and bond of marriage is not an created by the State. Never has been, never will be. Marriage is ordained by God in Genesis, and further revealed through the Scriptures, and even spoken of by our dear Lord Himself.

The fact that the State chooses to ratify marriages, to offer tax benefits, create marital privilege in legal proceedings and alter privacy laws and hospital visitation is fine, but has little to do with actual, Biblical marriage. It’s more for the sake of order that we allow the state to regulate marriage.

If the State chooses to allows homosexuals to ‘marry’, I will be disappointed, but it’s fine. It’s not actually a marriage, in the proper sense of the word, anyway.

Well, you don’t think it is. I don’t think it is. However, if this happens, the government will think it is, and the gays who enter into it will think it is, and the lawsuits will happen. Any time that a religion discriminates against a gay couple because they are actively gay, there will be a lawsuit, and the way will be wide open for government interference in our religions.

…some of them are already written and ready to file.

…and please do not tell me that the government won’t step in and attempt to force a religion to change its policies and doctrines to accept gay marriage. It will. It has already deliberately redifined marriage in such a way as to imprison thousands of men and destroy thousands of families because some ignoramuses didn’t approve of the way a group of people they had already booted out of their nation approached marriage.

I am astounded at the way people completely ignore Santayana. Frankly, I don’t know why I even try here. There might be some comfort in sitting back, seeing what’s about to happen, and saying 'I told you so…"

The problem is, WE are going to get it in the neck too.

Again.

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

All I’m seeing here is the same thing I’ve read on some gay forums: get the State out of the Marriage business. Same sex marriage never existed in the United States, OK? This whole idea of the government not interfering with religion is just a dodge. Why is this question on the ballot? Why didn’t gay people just go to the church of whatever or some guy who can marry people? It’s because they had to get all the sodomy laws repealed first. Step two: we’ll do what we want.

In Massachusetts, right now, you can see the final results.

Here’s what the Vatican has said:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Hope this helps,
Ed

The sodomy laws were assinine. They needed to be repealed. Such things should be handled by the religions, and in a religious court, NOT a civil one!

What one does in the privacy of one’s own home is nobody’s business but one’s own…and God. You do NOT get to dictate to me what I do in my bedroom. I do NOT get to tell you what to do in yours! All of that is between you, your spouse, and God.

Saying this does not mean that I consider gay sex to be any less sinful than when it was against the law. I’m simply saying that such things should be strictly the purvue of one’s own beliefs. After all, what you do in your bedroom does not in any way affect me.

When what you do DOES affect me and mine, then and then only do I have a right to object.

I guess I’m more of a libertarian than I thought.