Gay Marriage

#201
#201
I'm surprised at how open minded this thread was. I love it. I'm in the same boat as a lot of you - I could care less. Let them have the ability to get married. I mean, as Lisa Lampanelli said, 2 weeks of dating for gays is equivalent of 6 years.
 
#202
#202
Well when many Christians can't even follow their own definition of the sanctity of marriage, it becomes quite difficult to tell others what they can and cannot do with marriage.
 
#203
#203
CSpindizzy said:
Well when many Christians can't even follow their own definition of the sanctity of marriage, it becomes quite difficult to tell others what they can and cannot do with marriage.
Click to expand...

So for the Christians that can follow their own definition of the sanctity of marriage, it is ok to say what can and cannot be done with marriage?
 
#204
#204
allvol123 said:
So for the Christians that can follow their own definition of the sanctity of marriage, it is ok to say what can and cannot be done with marriage?
Click to expand...
If you are a Christian who is married, then you understand that your union is between you, your spouse, and God. This covenent is made upon an alter. So, why should it bother you whether or not the government wants to issue licenses to people of other persuasions?
 
#205
#205
therealUT said:
If you are a Christian who is married, then you understand that your union is between you, your spouse, and God. This covenent is made upon an alter. So, why should it bother you whether or not the government wants to issue licenses to people of other persuasions?
Click to expand...

One problem I would have with it would be the fact that most people are against it and thus if the governemnt stepped in and ok'd it knowing this, to me that would not be representing the public the correct way. I do not think I expressed myself very poetically there, but I think you get my drift.
 
#206
#206
allvol123 said:
One problem I would have with it would be the fact that most people are against it and thus if the governemnt stepped in and ok'd it knowing this, to me that would not be representing the public the correct way. I do not think I expressed myself very poetically there, but I think you get my drift.
Click to expand...
Most people were against voting rights for women, African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, etc.

Heck, most Germans were perfectly content with the "Final Solution."

The "everyone else is doing it" argument just doesn't hold up.
 
#207
#207
therealUT said:
Most people were against voting rights for women, African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, etc.

Heck, most Germans were perfectly content with the "Final Solution."

The "everyone else is doing it" argument just doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

Those are surely some good examples you have thrown down.

But earlier you said if some religion could convice the voting populus that it was ok to marry 10 year olds, then it would be legislated, then you would be ok with it. Or you could live with it.

So I am ok with the voting populus making the current representatives understand that they are not ok with the gay marriage idea.
 
#208
#208
therealUT said:
If you are a Christian who is married, then you understand that your union is between you, your spouse, and God. This covenent is made upon an alter. So, why should it bother you whether or not the government wants to issue licenses to people of other persuasions?
Click to expand...

To simple?

Hmmmm.......:detective:
 
#209
#209
Gay people are sinners when they engage in sexual relations within their gender.

Straight people are sinners when they lie, cheat, steal, covet, use God's name in vain, etc.

Straight people are allowed to marry, and be recognized by the government.

Why aren't Gay people allowed the same things?

The "sanctity of marriage" was ruined when Christians allowed so many people to get married without properly teaching them what "married" really means. The "sanctity of marriage" was ruined when Christians allowed so many people to get divorces for reasons other than the ONE that God says is the only reason you should divorce, and that is infidelity.

The "sanctity of marriage" will not be damaged by two Gay people getting married.

Christians need to get over themselves and quit pretending to be so sinless.
 
#210
#210
allvol123 said:
One problem I would have with it would be the fact that most people are against it and thus if the governemnt stepped in and ok'd it knowing this, to me that would not be representing the public the correct way. I do not think I expressed myself very poetically there, but I think you get my drift.
Click to expand...

This is not a democracy. We don't take polls and make laws on those poll results. As was stated, what most people want is not always in line with something called the Constitution. There is a document that holds back the mob mentality. After Columbine, most Americans wanted very tight gun controls. Terry Schiavo caused majorities to sway one way or another. Just because a majority of Americans stand for one issue does not make it right, legal, and/or Constitutional.
 
#211
#211
CSpindizzy said:
This is not a democracy. We don't take polls and make laws on those poll results. As was stated, what most people want is not always in line with something called the Constitution. There is a document that holds back the mob mentality. After Columbine, most Americans wanted very tight gun controls. Terry Schiavo caused majorities to sway one way or another. Just because a majority of Americans stand for one issue does not make it right, legal, and/or Constitutional.
Click to expand...


Really? Poll results don't automatically translate into laws? Very insightful CSpin. But we do live in a Republic and our representatives are there to represent the interests of the people that put them there. Do they always do this based on the "mob's" views? No. But on certain issues they do. You are right, just because a majority does stand for something does not make it right, legal, and/or Constitutional.
 
#212
#212
They represent the wishes of the people but not all of the time. Again, look at the Terry Schiavo instance. The far right tried to place their views on America and there was a backlash. Ultimately who decided on the matter? The courts after using the Constitution as a scale. Congress can pass laws to their little hearts' content. But when they get sent up through the courts, what is the deciding factor?

So you are completely fine with restricting a contract to specific people? If we're going to use the Bible as a measuring rod on defining marriage, let's up this one more and use that idea to define the ability to divorce as well. What about widows? Adultery? Let's go Old Testament on that.
 
#213
#213
CSpindizzy said:
They represent the wishes of the people but not all of the time. Again, look at the Terry Schiavo instance. The far right tried to place their views on America and there was a backlash. Ultimately who decided on the matter? The courts after using the Constitution as a scale. Congress can pass laws to their little hearts' content. But when they get sent up through the courts, what is the deciding factor?

So you are completely fine with restricting a contract to specific people? If we're going to use the Bible as a measuring rod on defining marriage, let's up this one more and use that idea to define the ability to divorce as well. What about widows? Adultery? Let's go Old Testament on that.
Click to expand...

I have already agreed with your first sentence.

I don't think I have used the Bible in this entire thread.

How some judge(s) intreprets the Constitutionality of something does not necesssarily make me change my mind on the matter.
 
#214
#214
I never said you used the Bible. "We" is a general term for all in the argument based on this whole 'sanctity of marriage' defense that is being used.

I never said there is an attempt to change your mind. I merely stated that the wishes of the majority are not always right or always taken.
 
#216
#216
IMO the whole fight seems to be about 1 word, marriage. Drop the word, seek civil unions with equal benefits under the law and the battle ends. Let the church keep the word and make all unions the same as viewed by gov't. Kinda like NJ just did. Just a thought...
 
#217
#217
While logical and making the most sense, there are those who want all or...all in the argument and will scare anyone with an R behind their name of holding out votes and/or money. The power of fear...
 
#221
#221
Here's a thought/question I just had: Why should we change laws and/or traditions our nation has had for over 200 years because certain people choose to live an alternative lifestyle? Please don't use the answer of what about civil rights and slavery and we changed those things because that is a far cry from choosing to be gay. I understand we have freedoms to live how we want in America as long as it doesn't hurt anybody but I don't see how this could help our country. Just as one could argue heterosexual marriage success rates or lack there of is hurting our society, homosexual marriage rates would likely be even lower. I guess I just don't see how it would benefit our society in any way.
 
#223
#223
JZVOL said:
Here's a thought/question I just had: Why should we change laws and/or traditions our nation has had for over 200 years because certain people choose to live an alternative lifestyle? Please don't use the answer of what about civil rights and slavery and we changed those things because that is a far cry from choosing to be gay. I understand we have freedoms to live how we want in America as long as it doesn't hurt anybody but I don't see how this could help our country. Just as one could argue heterosexual marriage success rates or lack there of is hurting our society, homosexual marriage rates would likely be even lower. I guess I just don't see how it would benefit our society in any way.
Click to expand...
Here is a question I have for you:

Should the government serve a moral capacity? Should the government determine what is morally acceptable behavior and what is not?

With an eye to these question, now consider the following:

If the government sanctions heterosexual marriage yet prohibits homosexual marriage, is the government determining what is and is not moral behavior?
 
#224
#224
therealUT said:
Here is a question I have for you:

Should the government serve a moral capacity? Should the government determine what is morally acceptable behavior and what is not?

With an eye to these question, now consider the following:

If the government sanctions heterosexual marriage yet prohibits homosexual marriage, is the government determining what is and is not moral behavior?
Click to expand...
Our pile of laws are steeped in morality, agreeable or not.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top