What's with all the new red and pink avatars / profile pictures?

[nmoira]

In the same way that non-Catholics cannot force the Catholic church to be married by a priest.

 

This is true of Catholics as well, so even membership in the church does not guarantee the right to marriage within the church.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Incidentally, I know Gina and Laura because they go to our church. Our church is over-the-moon excited about being able to marry the two of them legally now that Maryland has marriage equality. Those who cry out about "religious freedom" need to explain why our minister, in our church, should not have all of the wedding ceremonies he performs recognized by the federal government.

 

I believe that argument is what has actually won many over to the side of supporting marriage equality.

[OH_Homeschooler]

Umm, I have a gay couple that lives two doors down. We swap cookies during Christmas, we talk over the fence, we share garden plants.

 

Calling people homophobes to validate your argument doesn't work.

 

Marriage was there before Christianity. Exactly. Which is why it should still remain between a man and a woman (as in evolution needs the natural sex act to procreate). Change the estate laws, change the tax costs, change all of the other laws, and marriage doesn't have to be redefined. Problem solved.

 

Some of my best friends are gay! I bet they don't even mind that I don't think they should be allowed to get married!

[Guest inoubliable]

So, all those for marriage equality surely support the polygamists too...... right? Otherwise you aren't for equality, you are just a hypocrite. Also, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony....what happened to that obsession with separation of church and state?

 

I want government out of ALL marriage. I don't think I should have had to pay for permission to get married to my husband. I also think that divorce shouldn't be in the courts - if you get in to a contract then you find a way out of it - with attorneys and mediators that you pay to reach an agreement. Don't clog up the courts with your dysfunctional relationships.

 

Sure. It's between CONSENTING ADULTS. I'll wait while you look that up. You missed that part in all the hullabaloo.

No. It's not. Marriage isn't owned by the church. Any of them. And you're confused, sweetling, on the issue, anyway. No one is forcing RELIGIOUS entities to recognize any and every union. Churches are free to be bigoted of whatever they want. We want GOVERNMENT recognition of marriage. For everyone.

 

The rest of your post is too stupid to address.

[jeninok]

So, all those for marriage equality surely support the polygamists too...... right? Otherwise you aren't for equality, you are just a hypocrite. Also, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony....what happened to that obsession with separation of church and state?

 

I want government out of ALL marriage. I don't think I should have had to pay for permission to get married to my husband. I also think that divorce shouldn't be in the courts - if you get in to a contract then you find a way out of it - with attorneys and mediators that you pay to reach an agreement. Don't clog up the courts with your dysfunctional relationships.

 

 

I do actually support polygamy rights for consenting adults, if for no other reason than if it was legal it would come out in the open somewhat and maybe that would help protect young vulnerable girls in bad situations.

 

I am possesive of my husband, and wouldn't want to share him....other than that I can totally see how having another wife around the house would be totally useful and cool. In so many ways :coolgleamA:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Marriage was there before Christianity. Exactly. Which is why it should still remain between a man and a woman (as in evolution needs the natural sex act to procreate). Change the estate laws, change the tax costs, change all of the other laws, and marriage doesn't have to be redefined. Problem solved.

 

Didn't we already redefine it when we disallowed polygamy, child brides, and sibling marriages?

[I.Dup.]

Ah yes, I knew this was coming. So predictable. Not at all religious persecution. Please.

I don't think this was directed at you. I think it was directed at the poster that said black people can't choose to not be black so it was ok for them to seek equal rights, but it's not ok for homosexuals to seek equal rights because even though it's got some biological basis, they can choose not to be gay.

 

I understand it wasn't directed at me. But it's absolutely religious persecution if you are going to label someone a homophobe JUST because it goes against their religious beliefs. This word gets thrown around a lot in this context and I was just pointing out that I am most definitely not a homophobe, even though being homosexual is at odds with my religious beliefs. I do not hate or fear gay people, not at all. I just don't think it's helpful to bring up name calling and labels unless they are directed at a truly homophobic person. Homosexuality being at odds with one's religion is not being "homophobic."

[SKL]

I agree that the word "homophobe" is way overused to the point where it has no meaning. Same with the word "hate."

[Guest inoubliable]

Fair enough. Is there a term for being afraid of gays marrying?

 

gaymarryphobe maybe?

 

gaymarryphobe. *snort*

 

Reminds me of that Morgan Freeman quote (I know, I know - it wasn't actually him) about how no one is "afraid" of gays.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Moderator
Name calling

[Rivka]

I could absolutely see a miffed gay couple trying to sue a Church or bringing religious persecution to prove a point that they should be equal and be able to get married anywhere they want.

 

Let's think about that. Religion is a protected category in American society, right? People of all religions are allowed to get married. Discrimination on the basis of religion is against the law. If I go down to my beloved Goldberg's bagel shop and they refuse to serve me because I'm not Jewish, I would absolutely have grounds to sue. However, I do not have the right to go around the corner to the nearest shul (synagogue) and demand that the rabbi marry me to some other Unitarian.

 

Even though religion is a protected class.

 

Even though I have a right to be protected against religious discrimination.

 

Even if the same guy who is a rabbi at the shul on Saturday morning moonlights at Goldberg's bagels on Sunday. He'd be required to accommodate me on Sunday and absolutely entitled to refuse me service on Saturday.

 

I. Dup., you're Catholic, right? How many divorced people have sued your diocese for the right to get married by a priest in a Catholic church? How many Hindus have sued your diocese for the right to get married by a priest in a Catholic church? ...Yet both divorced people and Hindus have a right to marry legally.

[mommymilkies]

So, all those for marriage equality surely support the polygamists too...... right? Otherwise you aren't for equality, you are just a hypocrite. Also, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony....what happened to that obsession with separation of church and state?

 

I want government out of ALL marriage. I don't think I should have had to pay for permission to get married to my husband. I also think that divorce shouldn't be in the courts - if you get in to a contract then you find a way out of it - with attorneys and mediators that you pay to reach an agreement. Don't clog up the courts with your dysfunctional relationships.

 

Polygamy has nothing to do with this. I am very for legalizing two consenting adults to marry.

 

In fact, most people I know for gay marriage are against legalized polygamy because of the issue of power. Think FLDS, there is a huge power differential there that forces many girls into marriages. That whole situation is very disturbing. If there was some way to stop this and get around it, I would consider supporting it. Of course being illegal doesn't stop them, either. And definitely not all polygamists are like this. But then I must ask, are you think polygamy meaning one man, many wives, or many men, one wife? Different term.

 

A brief synopsis of why I have a problem with polygamy practiced today: http://voicesfordignity.com/selective-amnesia-what-we-must-forget-in-order-to-justify-the-legalization-or-decriminalization-of-patriarchal-polygamy/

[justamouse]

 

Ah yes, I knew this was coming. So predictable. Not at all religious persecution. Please.

 

No, it's not quite persecution, but it is bullying.

[jeninok]

Umm, I have a gay couple that lives two doors down. We swap cookies during Christmas, we talk over the fence, we share garden plants.

 

Calling people homophobes to validate your argument doesn't work.

 

Marriage was there before Christianity. Exactly. Which is why it should still remain between a man and a woman (as in evolution needs the natural sex act to procreate). Change the estate laws, change the tax codes, change all of the other laws, and marriage doesn't have to be redefined. Problem solved.

 

But do you love them, truly love them as you do your spouse, or your kids? What if you did?

 

What if they were your best friend, your son, your brother. I bet then you wouldn't care deeply and fervently that they be afforded the same benefits and protections under the law that any other adult married couple receives.

 

Also, separate but equal was an abysmal failure, have we as a nation forgotten that?

[OH_Homeschooler]

No, it's not quite persecution, but it is bullying.

 

Oh? The fact of the matter is that you're against gay people getting to marry. It doesn't matter what the basis of your opinion is, it still comes across as denying other human being rights you are already enjoying.

[Ipsey]

Catholic Charities should have the right to do what they please though, right? Wasn't there also this issue with a private bakery where the baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? Even if you want to label him as close-minded and ridiculous, that should still be his right as a baker owning his own shop, right? If they don't like it they can go down the street and find another baker but didn't they make it into a huge issue somehow and try to shut down his bakery? It's his own bakery, why should he be FORCED to do something that goes against his personal religious beliefs?

 

AFA Churches go, they shouldn't be FORCED to go against their ancient, religious beliefs. Race is not a moral issue, homosexuality is.

 

Re: the bolded, the other issue I can think of is Churches being sued because they refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for a gay couple.

 

How many Mormon churches have been sued because they won't allow non-Mormons to be married in the temple. How about non-Catholics who have sued because they can't have a Mass?

 

I can't see the threat.

[I.Dup.]

Thank you all for countering my arguments. I truly don't have a dog in this fight, I am 100% fine with gays having the same rights as everyone else and have a hard time coming to terms with my Church's beliefs on this particular issue. I love the Catholic Church and will submit to her out of reverence and all of that, but you won't find me out picketing either way on this issue.

 

Maybe another Catholic or religious person will chime in with why exactly gay marriage is wrong, because I've got nothing else.

[4kidlets4me]

I understand it wasn't directed at me. But it's absolutely religious persecution if you are going to label someone a homophobe JUST because it goes against their religious beliefs. This word gets thrown around a lot in this context and I was just pointing out that I am most definitely not a homophobe, even though being homosexual is at odds with my religious beliefs. I do not hate or fear gay people, not at all. I just don't think it's helpful to bring up name calling and labels unless they are directed at a truly homophobic person. Homosexuality being at odds with one's religion is not being "homophobic."

 

I'm so sick of religious people claiming persecution when someone disagrees with them. What about my freedom to NOT be persecuted by religious people? This is a secular nation and I'm really tired of Christians trying to wheedle their religious beliefs into the laws of this country! There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

[Mrs Mungo]

THIS is why...

 

Sadly, being married doesn't stop fighting between families during a medical crisis or after a death. We've seen it over and over. Always have a medical power of attorney with your wishes detailed as much as possible. Always have a will. The last mom and wife we saw go through the loss of their soldier are currently fighting it out in court. It happens *often*.

[I.Dup.]

 

I'm so sick of religious people claiming persecution when someone disagrees with them. What about my freedom to NOT be persecuted by religious people? This is a secular nation and I'm really tired of Christians trying to wheedle their religious beliefs into the laws of this country! There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

 

Am I labeling you with ugly names? Religious people deal routinely with being called hateful, bigoted, homophobic, etc, etc. Among other lovely, hateful labels.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Oh?

 

 

Yup.

You see denying equal rights to others, saying their behavior is immoral, declaring their kind will ruin the sanctity of marriage and so forth is certainly not bullying. Nope. That is just freedom of expression.

 

But using a word (like homophobe) to describe those who hold those beliefs? Now THAT is bullying. :huh:

[justamouse]

But do you love them, truly love them as you do your spouse, or your kids? What if you did?

 

What if they were your best friend, your son, your brother. I bet then you wouldn't care deeply and fervently that they be afforded the same benefits and protections under the law that any other adult married couple receives.

 

Also, separate but equal was an abysmal failure, have we as a nation forgotten that?

 

 

Would I die for them? Yes. Absolutely, I have no fear of death or dying to save someone. Christ died for me. That doesn't mean that the definition of the word marriage should be changed to allow their unions. They are not equal. They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce. So, by natural law, they are different.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

I'm so sick of religious people claiming persecution when someone disagrees with them. What about my freedom to NOT be persecuted by religious people? This is a secular nation and I'm really tired of Christians trying to wheedle their religious beliefs into the laws of this country! There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

 

 

Yes!

 

 

Sadly, being married doesn't stop fighting between families during a medical crisis or after a death. We've seen it over and over. Always have a medical power of attorney with your wishes detailed as much as possible. Always have a will.

 

 

Truth. DH and I went through that. Nightmare. Advance directives, wills. Get them.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Would I die for them? Yes. Absolutely, I have no fear of death or dying to save someone. Christ died for me. That doesn't mean that the definition of the word marriage should be changed to allow their unions. They are not equal. They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce. So, by natural law, they are different.

 

 

So a couple who is infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry, correct?

[Lady Florida.]

But that doesn't require marriage to happen. And not all who marry produce children.

 

 

Justice Kagan pointed that out yesterday too.

 

Justice Kagan: It seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite -- opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?

 

MR. COOPER (defending prop 8): I -- Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of our -- our position, yes.

 

later...

 

Justice Breyer: What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children.

 

Justice Kagan (continuing): Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

 

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

 

 

That slippery slope ain't all that slippery

 

Also the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. People often forget that.

 

 

Do you really see the same type of public outcry necessary to start a movement of this magnitude happening over, say, allowing an adult to marry a 12-year old? No. 'cause it isn't going to happen. We're talking about two consenting adults, in love, wanting the same basic rights as any man and woman. Nothing weird or scary about it.

 

 

And this is why it's a fallacy. Slippery slope arguments usually lead to ridiculous examples.

[OH_Homeschooler]

 

Am I labeling you with ugly names? Religious people deal routinely with being called hateful, bigoted, homophobic, etc, etc. Among other lovely, hateful labels.

 

 

Sometimes those labels apply. Sometimes they apply to non-religious people. Sometimes they don't apply to religious people. Sometimes they don't apply to non-religious people. So MAYBE those labels are not persecution, maybe they're just...accurate labels? And since you happen to be religious, you figure it's an attack against your religion?

[nmoira]

But marriage is NOT exclusively owned by religions. It is not traditionally a religious ceremony.

 

When the religious arguments for the restriction of marriage start coming, I'm always a little disappointed that my marriage isn't deemed equally controversial. I feel we're discriminated against as an opposite sex couple.

 

DH and I are both atheists, so there's no hope of my even riding into heaven on his coattails.

[HollyinNNV]

 

 

That is one of the most offensive, stupid, and insulting things I've read here in a long time.

 

 

 

Sure. It's between CONSENTING ADULTS. I'll wait while you look that up. You missed that part in all the hullabaloo.

No. It's not. Marriage isn't owned by the church. Any of them. And you're confused, sweetling, on the issue, anyway. No one is forcing RELIGIOUS entities to recognize any and every union. Churches are free to be bigoted of whatever they want. We want GOVERNMENT recognition of marriage. For everyone.

 

The rest of your post is too stupid to address.

 

 

Your anger seems to be clouding your ability to maintain civility.

[I.Dup.]

And since you happen to be religious, you figure it's an attack against your religion?

 

 

That is what I assumed since it is heard SO. FREAKING. OFTEN. in this context. Against people who are ONLY opposed to homosexuality from a religious standpoint. But I apologize if I assumed incorrectly. :)

[jeninok]

 

Would I die for them? Yes. Absolutely, I have no fear of death or dying to save someone. Christ died for me. That doesn't mean that the definition of the word marriage should be changed to allow their unions. They are not equal. They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce. So, by natural law, they are different.

 

 

 

My husband and I cannot reproduce, ever, and won't be able to. My parents could not reproduce, ever. And yet both are very real marriages in which children are fiercely loved.

 

I'm also not asking about noble christlike intentions, but rather the kind of love that makes you want to live for someone.

[AnIslandGirl]

Would I die for them? Yes. Absolutely, I have no fear of death or dying to save someone. Christ died for me. That doesn't mean that the definition of the word marriage should be changed to allow their unions. They are not equal. They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce. So, by natural law, they are different.

 

 

Are you serious!?!?!?! So, according to your theory if a man is infertile he should not have the right to marry a woman, nor should a woman who has had her uterus removed due to cancer be able to marry a man? You honestly think marriage is just about reproduction?!?

[elegantlion]

I used to believe being gay was a choice. I have way too many examples in my real life where I don't believe it is, heck even in my extended family.

 

So if it's biological, then one of the chrisitian commandments is "Thou shalt not lie", I'm pretty sure that means to yourself as well. So by denying gay people the same rights we are asking them to lie 1, about who they are, created by God, as it says we are created in His image, there is no exclusion for gay people. 2. Then we we are asking them to sin further by not allowing them to marry.

 

If you say "Well fine, be gay, just don't act upon it" then aren't you asking them to deny who they are, and if they are created by God, then they are in fact denying God. I think that might be a big one too.

 

That's not even counting the love your neighbor thing, the do not judge thing, and all the other stuff about logs and splinters and such.

[4kidlets4me]

Would I die for them? Yes. Absolutely, I have no fear of death or dying to save someone. Christ died for me. That doesn't mean that the definition of the word marriage should be changed to allow their unions. They are not equal. They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce. So, by natural law, they are different.

 

 

They are not different they are people....in love. Equal end of story.

[Guest inoubliable]

Your anger seems to be clouding your ability to maintain civility.

 

 

Could be. You seem to be in the minority in feeling that, though. Feel free to ignore me.

Or did you want to contribute something to the conversation?

[justamouse]

 

So a couple who is infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry, correct?

 

 

I have you on ignore, but I clicked this, and will not further answer any more of your questions. Just say'n.

 

Just because a couple is infertile, doesn't not mean that their bodies were not *intended* to reproduce. They have the parts. The parts may not work and that is a cross to bear that causes most infertile couples heartache and anguish. To say that they never intended to bear children (few minority do) is not true.

 

People always throw that one in there without fully thinking it through.

[justamouse]

Are you serious!?!?!?! So, according to your theory if a man is infertile he should not have the right to marry a woman, nor should a woman who has had her uterus removed due to cancer be able to marry a man? You honestly think marriage is just about reproduction?!?

 

See my response to CR

[Mrs Mungo]

That is what I assumed since it is heard SO. FREAKING. OFTEN. in this context. Against people who are ONLY opposed to homosexuality from a religious standpoint. But I apologize if I assumed incorrectly. :)

 

 

There are many people who believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior, just as many other acts are sinful-gossip, heterosexual sex outside of marriage, lying, divorce, etc, but do not believe LAWS should be made upon those religious beliefs. There is a difference there, imo. And, I *do* think many people are homophobic in the sense that they fear being homosexual or they fear someone they love (like a child) being a homosexual. It isn't a fear of homosexuals.

[OH_Homeschooler]

 

I have you on ignore, but I clicked this, and will not further answer any more of your questions. Just say'n.

 

Just because a couple is infertile, doesn't not mean that their bodies were not *intended* to reproduce. They have the parts. The parts may not work and that is a cross to bear that causes most infertile couples heartache and anguish. To say that they never intended to bear children (few minority do) is not true.

 

People always throw that one in there without fully thinking it through.

 

 

Not buying it. Sorry.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Not buying it. Sorry.

 

 

Same.

 

(WHY can't I *like* posts yet?!?)

[justamouse]

 

Not buying it. Sorry.

 

 

So then there is no natural law that sex = children? OK.

[justasque]

 

 

I could absolutely see a miffed gay couple trying to sue a Church or bringing religious persecution to prove a point that they should be equal and be able to get married anywhere they want...

 

 

The thing is that the suit would be thrown out, pronto, because there is no basis in the law for it. You can *sue* over whatever you want, if you're willing to waste your money, but if there are no legal grounds to stand on, your suit won't get very far. And the ACLU or another similar group would defend the church in a heartbeat, so the church wouldn't even be out any $ over it.

[Orthodox6]

CAN THIS PLEASE QUALIFY AS A POLITICAL THREAD AND GO AWAY?

 

People do not agree about this topic. People do not even agree about basic dictionary and cultural definitions of concepts. This thread is 100% political, 100% religious, and 100% non-religious.

[OH_Homeschooler]

 

So then there is no natural law that sex = children? OK.

 

 

I've had sex (with fertile men!) a lot more times than I've had children. :lol:

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

Would I die for them? Yes. Absolutely, I have no fear of death or dying to save someone. Christ died for me. That doesn't mean that the definition of the word marriage should be changed to allow their unions. They are not equal. They are different, they cannot, and will never be able to reproduce. So, by natural law, they are different.

 

 

Wow. The same description could be used to describe my husband and I. I have so many words for you right now and none of them are appropriate for this board.

You need to do some deep soul searching on this one.

You are so. Incredibly. Wrong. And hateful. And a bigot. And extremely out of line.

 

[Guest inoubliable]

Wow. The same description could be used to describe my husband and I. I have so many words for you right now and none of them are appropriate for this board.

You need to do some deep soul searching on this one.

You are so. Incredibly. Wrong. And hateful. And a bigot. And extremely out of line.

 

 

Thank you. I wasn't sure I could get away with saying all of that. Agreeing 100%.

[justamouse]

 

 

Archbishop Cordlieone on USA Today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Q: How would the allegation that opponents are bigoted lead to their rights being abridged?

 

A: Notice the first right being taken away: the right of 7 million Californians who devoted time and treasure to the democratic process, to vote for our share

 

 

 

d vision of marriage. Taking away people's right to vote on marriage is not in itself a small thing.

 

But the larger picture that's becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it's a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination.

 

If you want to know what this new public legal and social norm stigmatizing traditional believers will mean for real people, ask David and Tanya Parker, who objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same sex marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized it in that state and wanted to pull him out of class for that lesson. He was arrested and handcuffed for trying to protect his son's education, and they were told they had no right to do so.

 

Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don't allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. Ask Tammy Schulz of Illinois, who adopted four children (including a sibling group) through Evangelical Child Family Services — which was shut down because it refuses to place children with same-sex couples. (The same thing has happened in Illinois, Boston and Washington, D.C., to Catholic Charities adoption services). ... Ask the doctor in San Diego County who did not want to personally create a fatherless child through artificial insemination, and was punished by the courts.... Ask Amy Rudnicki who testified in the Colorado Legislature recently that if Catholic Charities is shut out of the adoption business by new legislation, her family will lose the child they expected to adopt this year. ... Nobody is better off if religious adoption agencies are excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children, but governments are doing this because the principle of "anti-discrimination" is trumping liberty and compassion. ...

 

When people say that opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, like opposition to interracial marriage, they cannot also say their views won't hurt anybody else. They seek to create and enforce a new moral and legal norm that stigmatizes those who view marriage as the union of husband and wife. ... It's not kind, and it doesn't seem to lead to a "live and let live" pluralism."

 

 

 

 

[Orthodox6]

Wow. The same description could be used to describe my husband and I. I have so many words for you right now and none of them are appropriate for this board.

You need to do some deep soul searching on this one.

You are so. Incredibly. Wrong. And hateful. And a bigot. And extremely out of line.

 

 

Your ugly response is a class-A example of why I posted my earlier post (#173).

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

I have you on ignore, but I clicked this, and will not further answer any more of your questions. Just say'n.

 

Just because a couple is infertile, doesn't not mean that their bodies were not *intended* to reproduce. They have the parts. The parts may not work and that is a cross to bear that causes most infertile couples heartache and anguish. To say that they never intended to bear children (few minority do) is not true.

 

People always throw that one in there without fully thinking it through.

 

 

 

Unbelievable. I hope this thread gets locked down.

[I.Dup.]

There are many people who believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior, just as many other acts are sinful-gossip, heterosexual sex outside of marriage, lying, divorce, etc, but do not believe LAWS should be made upon those religious beliefs.

 

Right. I am one of those people. If we are going to outlaw gay marriage we should at least be consistent and outlaw divorce, which is extremely damaging in the majority of cases, and very commonplace.

 

I understand the frustration those must feel about this issue who are not Christian or do not ascribe to Christian beliefs in any way. I feel for you, I really do. I will admit this is an issue that I just don't get the vitriol behind it. There are lots of things we as Christians should not partake in. That's fine, and it's a part of the beliefs we chose.

[jeninok]

 

I have you on ignore, but I clicked this, and will not further answer any more of your questions. Just say'n.

 

Just because a couple is infertile, doesn't not mean that their bodies were not *intended* to reproduce. They have the parts. The parts may not work and that is a cross to bear that causes most infertile couples heartache and anguish. To say that they never intended to bear children (few minority do) is not true.

 

People always throw that one in there without fully thinking it through.

 

 

 

I can assure you that many Gay couples also very much want to be parents, their heartache and anguish is every bit as strong as hetero couples in this regard, which is a big reason why legal marriage is so important, it would protect the right of more families to adopt and raise children in loving stable homes.

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

Your ugly response is a class-A example of why I posted my earlier post (#173).

 

 

Please get help. I honestly hope you aren't saying the things you are posting out loud.