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

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I guess I am just wondering if people believe we should ban gay marriage on religious grounds then why do we allow people to divorce?

 

Divorce is mentioned in the Bible a LOT more than homosexuality and MUCH MUCH more than gay marriage. ( which not mentioned at all)

 

 

To be fair, a few denominations and the Patriarchy movement would get right behind that was well.

[Mergath]

Okay, I agree that this is potentially about religious beliefs being forced on society. That may be the crux of the issue here.

 

I also hear justamouse saying that she is NOT against equal rights, she just doesn't want the DEFINITION of marriage changed. I think that is where Christians are coming from on a religious standpoint. I know for myself, as I have already mentioned, have absolutely nothing against gay people having the same rights as everyone else.

 

 

I would really love to know who awarded the Christian church the unilateral right to define marriage for the entire country. Same sex couples shouldn't have to settle for separate-but-equal because Christians don't own the institution of marriage.

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess I am just wondering if people believe we should ban gay marriage on religious grounds then why do we allow people to divorce?

 

Divorce is mentioned in the Bible a LOT more than homosexuality and MUCH MUCH more than gay marriage. ( which not mentioned at all)

 

 

That was why my comment on the verse presented showed that our currently laws are *not* based on a "Christian" or "Catholic" or any other religion's views. I know we agree on this, I'm just reiterating.

[Mrs Mungo]

I would really love to know who awarded the Christian church the unilateral right to define marriage for the entire country. Same sex couples shouldn't have to settle for separate-but-equal because Christians don't own the institution of marriage.

 

And not all Christians agree on the definition of marriage. Not all Christians think the same about divorce as the Catholic church. Not all Christians even believe that homosexuality is a sin.

[molon labe]

 

 

 

I hate guns. I think they should be illegal. I feel very strongly about that. But nobody gives a rat's small intestine that I "FEEL" that way. I don't get my way because something makes me feel bad.

 

No, you don't get your way because the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected.

[Slartibartfast]

That was why my comment on the verse presented showed that our currently laws are *not* based on a "Christian" or "Catholic" or any other religion's views. I know we agree on this, I'm just reiterating.

 

If they were actually based on the messages taught in the Bible I don't think we would be a capitalist country. :lol:

[Mekanamom]

 

 

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.

 

I have not read all the responses, so forgive me if someone has already brought this up.

 

Regarding Prop 8 in California. Under the state's *legal definition of marriage*, gay couples were allowed to marry (for a short time.) Those unions were legal under the existing definition of marriage at the time. It took proposition 8 to *change* the legal definition of marriage in order to stop marriage equality.

 

It was not just a matter of preventing gay marriage. It was a matter of taking away an existing right.

 

Who is guilty of changing the definition of marriage in this particular case?

[JuanitaL]

 

I've been posting online for almost 20 years now. Discussions like these have *definitely* changed my views about certain things over a long period of time. Exposure to other views, why people think that, what types of people think that way, having to examine my own views-these are all healthy, positive things in the long run. They may be frustrating in the short run, but I have learned when to walk away from a discussion and/or who to put on ignore, even if it's just for a while (usually, it is for good).

I totally agree with this - except I've only been posting online about 10 years. (Not that I'm probably younger than Mrs. Mungo, just further behind the curve.) I can't think of a time that I've ever immediately thought - oh, I'm wrong! I've changed my mind! But, I often think - hmmm, I didn't know that, never would have thought of that, never met anybody who ___. Over time, views change.

[*Michelle*]

 

Not all Christians even believe that homosexuality is a sin.

 

Catholics do not believe that homosexuality is a sin.

[Mrs Mungo]

No, you don't get your way because the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected.

 

Exactly. Just as people are constitutionally protected FROM the Tyranny of the Majority, even if the majority reallyreallyreally wants a law based on the majority religion.

 

If they were actually based on the messages taught in the Bible I don't think we would be a capitalist country. :lol:

 

True facts. There would need to be a lot more feeding the poor for starters.

[Slartibartfast]

I would really love to know who awarded the Christian church the unilateral right to define marriage for the entire country. Same sex couples shouldn't have to settle for separate-but-equal because Christians don't own the institution of marriage.

 

I am a Christian and I do not believe that, not all denominations agree on the issue.

[SKL]

So for example. The biggest thing holding me back is the fact that calling a gay couple "married" gives them valuable rights that single people do not have, at the expense of others, with no clear benefit to society other than some vague sense of "we're nice people now."

 

I live with two other single women and we look out for each other as best friends do. We are not homosexual. Why should we qualify for preferential treatment if we had sexual relations and/or made an easy-to-dissolve marriage contract?

 

The question then arises: why is that acceptable for heterosexual married couples? Well, I answer, they are more likely to be raising kids and the benefit is really intended for the kids. Society agrees in looking after the kids, right?

 

So then you say, gay people can be parents too. True, though less likely. Often we throw a broad net intending to catch most of the people we intend to help and miss most of the people we don't intend to help, because it's more efficient than addressing each individual on a case-by-case basis. Then I say, why don't we then attach the benefit to the kids instead of the married couples?

 

Here on this board, where married women kinda like the benefits and would like to have them whether or not they have kids at home, don't warm to this idea. No, leave my marriage benefits alone. I cook and clean and homeschool, dammit! So then. We're back to the question of why I, as an unmarried female living with single female friends, must be treated differently from a female who marries one of her female friends. "Why, because I'm in love. How could anyone be against love? Give me my benefits, dammit!"

 

If they took away all economic benefits of marriage provided by or subsidized by the government, I would have no issue with gay marriage. However, I would still allow other people to voice their issues on the subject.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

Catholics do not believe that homosexuality is a sin.

 

Let me rephrase-not all Christians believe that engaging in a loving, consensual, adult homosexual relationship is a sin. Note: I'm not saying what I believe either way. I am merely pointing out that there is a continuum of beliefs among Christians.

[Mergath]

 

Catholics do not believe that homosexuality is a sin.

 

I've always thought that was kind of a cop out. "Oh, it's okay if you FEEL gay, just don't ever, ever act on it." Because that's really fair to gay people. :glare:

[SKL]

How so? My very straight, self-proclaimed Lutheran dh is an even more ardent supporter of equal rights than I am, if that's possible. Are you trying to say that men are anti-gay marriage? That does quite a disservice to the men I know.

 

Well, I know lots of men too.

[AdventureMoms]

 

Not everyone who is against it is against it for religious reasons.

 

I've been fighting this battle for about 8 years now. I've run across about 3 arguements against it. By FAR the most common is "it's against my religion". Second most common amounts to "gay people are icky". Less common but still showing up occasionally is "it'll cost too much in benefits".

 

The third one is the only one that leads to even vaguely interesting discussions, but it is rare, and not nearly as impassioned. That one is used by people who don't really care, or who are really covering for #2. There's not much you can say to the second. The vast, vast majority use the first, so yes, that's what we usually discuss.

[Mrs Mungo]

So for example. The biggest thing holding me back is the fact that calling a gay couple "married" gives them valuable rights that single people do not have, at the expense of others, with no clear benefit to society other than some vague sense of "we're nice people now."

 

I live with two other single women and we look out for each other as best friends do. We are not homosexual. Why should we qualify for preferential treatment if we had sexual relations and/or made an easy-to-dissolve marriage contract?

 

 

Are you asking or is this rhetorical? Because I'm already on record in the thread supporting people being able to form such a legal bond with another person. I used my life-long bachelor uncles as examples of people I would like to see be able to take care of each other from a legal perspective.

[Slartibartfast]

I've been fighting this battle for about 8 years now. I've run across about 3 arguements against it. By FAR the most common is "it's against my religion". Second most common amounts to "gay people are icky". Less common but still showing up occasionally is "it'll cost too much in benefits".

 

 

Tax payers have spent and will spend *more* in court expenses on these laws than it would cost in benefits.

 

"It would be too expensive" is not a defensible position, IMO, when one is discussing Civil Rights.

 

If people really are using "cost" as an excuse then they should just give up now because the issue isn't going to just go away and it will continue to cost taxpayers whether it be expenses in ballot measures, legal wrangling or court costs. Law is not free.

[JuanitaL]

 

Obviously, you aren't in their debate class...that wouldn't be allowed ;) (I'm being serious). Depending upon who is teaching persuasion these days...it might.

It's actually Apol. It's an example of "don't do this. It's illogical and it doesn't work." And.... here we are.

[justamouse]

The right to murder vs the agreement not to murder. It seems "natural" to me that people in close proximity, be they clan, tribe, village, whatever, would frown upon murder within the group, both out of fear for the self and because it's destabilizing to the group. It's not up to a vote of the populous because it's a precondition for a stable, healthy society.

 

Not everything is so clear cut that it has "always been," especially when dealing with "others": There are places where slavery is still the custom, where women are not afforded equal rights, etc., but are these not things we should fight against? Societies change over time and new agreements are made. It's just the way it is.

 

 

I broke that apart so I could answer both.

 

To the first, exactly. And, I would say that the family unit would have been and IS the strength of those societies and are why we are here. Just like you said, "It's not up to a vote of the populous because it's a precondition for a stable, healthy society." Which is exactly why marriage should not be redefined.

 

To the second, we should always be fighting against oppression. But again, the idea here in redefining the term marriage is to not accommodate the minority, which we could do, but to change the whole. Societies DO change, but for billions of years, the family unit has been the basis of that society, and the union of the country is actually there to protect the family unit of which it is made up of. It is the marriage debt owed to each other and the children of that union.

 

So, where do these rights that we are speaking of come from? The Declaration of Independence says that we are granted them by our CREATOR (and can we for a minute remember the writer of the document and his own education in the Greek and Latin, and the study of man). They are not a populous vote, they are natural law which is within us all, and is there to protect the family unit, the societies we live in and therefore our country. It doesn't say that we are endowed with Mouse's rights, nor Moira's. The Church understood the whole of that natural law (its implications and consequences of the breaking of it) and Christ's teachings and made it a Dogma of the church.

 

In Loving vs Virginia it was not decided that we have the right to marry our own sex. I am bringing this up because it is constantly thrown in people's faces as the case which set the precedent for gay marriage. It does not, in any way do so. All women are women. All men are men. Men of all races and women of all races can procreate. They are two different arguments.

 

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that: “

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[molon labe]

Interesting. You state how what she says reveals her character. I feel the same way about your support of discrimination and bigotry.

 

You have every right to feel how you do. However, the only opinion that counts is that of my Lord and Savior. If on my day of judgement He deems me to be a bigot, then I will have to answer for that but for now I'm completely comfortable with my views just the way they are.

 

Homosexuals are people, as such they should be loved as any other child of God is. As a Christian I am able to love the sinner but hate the sin.

[JuanitaL]

Shoot. Now what am I going to do with them?

 

The daughter? Or the livestock? I'm actually in the market for a dairy goat.

[LibraryLover]

Besides, most of us here are women. If there were a couple thousand men having this discussion, I guarantee it would be very different in substance. Very different.

 

 

Given the percentage of hetero men who have engaged in fantasies about two women doing it, sure. Depending on the group of men, the convo might eventually go there, and then there would be a few comments about how their prowess could convert lesbians. So yes, it would be different.

 

;)

[Parrothead]

I like your questions/comments I am still thinking about number 1. As to number 2 I'd just state that nobody can be forced to move to another state. If they choose to move, then they choose to abide by the laws of that state. That is the way it is now. The only exception to that I can think of is the military. I guess there would need to be a federal law for those in the military.

Thanks for the conversation,

 

Just to clarify, there are other federal jobs that may necessitate a mandatory move. Dh is in one of those. At any moment he can be told he has to be in ___ within 30 day and he either complies or loses his job.

 

Okay, back to the discussion at hand.

[nmoira]

 

The daughter? Or the livestock? I'm actually in the market for a dairy goat.

 

 

Daughters. If I'd known, we'd have kept going for a boy or two.

[justamouse]

I would really love to know who awarded the Christian church the unilateral right to define marriage for the entire country. Same sex couples shouldn't have to settle for separate-but-equal because Christians don't own the institution of marriage.

 

 

It is not the Catholic church or ANY church that gets to define it, which is why this is so frustrating, It is a billions of years old concept that was there before Christianity, it helped in the evolutionary process, otherwise you wouldn't be here. We who want to keep that law in place see the inherant value of it, though all these billions of years, and think perhaps, these last 50 years might be a drop in the bucket of our history, so let's not fool it.

 

 

You are fighting against the natural law and rights of man that have been in place forever and ever amen. It was prejudice against blacks (notice most of the resistance came from the south where slavery was a part of the culture) that perpetuated laws against interracial marriage, and it is no way a civil rights argument.

[justamouse]

If they were actually based on the messages taught in the Bible I don't think we would be a capitalist country. :lol:

 

 

Catholic teaching actually doesn't support a capitalist society for those very reasons. It doesn't benefit the least of the society. That's not to say socialism is the answer.

[Slartibartfast]

It is not the Catholic church or ANY church that gets to define it, which is why this is so frustrating, It is a billions of years old concept that was there before Christianity, it helped in the evolutionary process, otherwise you wouldn't be here. We who want to keep that law in place see the inherant value of it, though all these billions of years, and think perhaps, these last 50 years might be a drop in the bucket of our history, so let's not fool it.

 

 

You are fighting against the natural law and rights of man that have been in place forever and ever amen. It was prejudice against blacks (notice most of the resistance came from the south where slavery was a part of the culture) that perpetuated it, and it is no way a civil rights argument.

 

 

Marriage is a Civil rights issue, ius civis or the "rights of citizens"

[AdventureMoms]

 

 

Tax payers have spent and will spend *more* in court expenses on these laws than it would cost in benefits.

 

"It would be too expensive" is not a defensible position, IMO, when one is discussing Civil Rights.

 

If people really are using "cost" as an excuse then they should just give up now because the issue isn't going to just go away and it will continue to cost taxpayers whether it be expenses in ballot measures, legal wrangling or court costs. Law is not free.

 

 

Oh, I agree that it's not a very good argument. It's just more interesting then the more common argument of, "You shouldn't be allowed to get married, because my God says it is wrong. Even though you don't believe in my God, you should still have to follow his rules. "

[justamouse]

Marriage is a Civil rights issue, ius civis or the "rights of citizens"

 

 

In the larger sense, yes, in the terms that people here in the states use citing Loving vs Virginia, (and racial equality) no.

[Jen in NY]

Justamouse, I don't think you really mean billions..... but I get what you are trying to say. :)

 

I am not sure if evolutionarily relevant can apply though - or else how does someone explain the very existence of homosexuality at all?

 

I am not trying to be obstinate... I am really trying to understand the argument. It's not like homosexuality has not existed all this time until now, right?

[Mom-ninja.]

 

Homosexuals are people, as such they should be loved as any other child of God is. As a Christian I am able to love the sinner but hate the sin.

 

 

And you love homosexuals so much that you will deny them the right to equality. Yes, very loving.

[Parrothead]

 

But murder doesn't fall under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Again not everyone follows the church or The Church for their moral and legal teachings. Catholic is not a country.

 

 

Ah, just to clarify, yes, there is a very small Catholic country. The US is not a Catholic country though.

[Mom-ninja.]

Um, if we went off "natural law" and evolution define marriage it would be multiple partners marriage. Both men and women would have multiple partners but more so the men. The reason we have a one spouse law is societal not "natural."

 

Again, read The Moral Animal.

[FaithManor]

The fact that you can't sell your daughter for two goats and a sheep means we've already redefined marriage.

 

 

 

What????? DD is getting married in June and we are supposed to be getting two goats and a sheep?

 

Oh that darned bratty boy...he hasn't offered us a single animal nor one penny!!!

 

Dh better get on top of this quickly before we let her get hitched to a weasel! :D

 

Faith

[Mom-ninja.]

Ah, just to clarify, yes, there is a very small Catholic country. The US is not a Catholic country though.

 

 

Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer!

[Catwoman]

 

 

What????? DD is getting married in June and we are supposed to be getting two goats and a sheep?

 

Oh that darned bratty boy...he hasn't offered us a single animal nor one penny!!!

 

Dh better get on top of this quickly before we let her get hitched to a weasel! :D

 

Faith

 

 

:D :D :D :D

 

 

 

Get tough, Mama. There's livestock to be had.

[AdventureMoms]

Justamouse, I don't think you really mean billions..... but I get what you are trying to say. :)

 

I am not sure if evolutionarily relevant can apply though - or else how does someone explain the very existence of homosexuality at all?

 

I am not trying to be obstinate... I am really trying to understand the argument. It's not like homosexuality has not existed all this time until now, right?

 

 

I don't get the evolutionary argument either. Throughout most of history, heterosexual coupling has been necessary for reproduction, yes. However, there have also been gay people, throughout all of that time. Somehow, the human race managed to evolve anyhow. And in modern times, homosexual couples can in fact produce children. I know this, because I have three children. I don't think we are interrupting the evolutionary cycle. My daughter will carry my genes forward. My sons will carry my wife's genes forward. They will have children of their own, etc. It seems to me that evolution will continue as it always has.

 

Plus, I don't see how such a small segment of the population is likely to affect evolution in any way shape or form.

[Slartibartfast]

In the larger sense, yes, in the terms that people here in the states use citing Loving vs Virginia, (and racial equality) no.

 

 

it is so that Loving v. Virginia stated "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." He was using another case, Skinner v. Oklahoma as precedent. Oklahoma had decided to sterilize criminals. (yikes!!) Skinner was a chicken thief and they wanted to clean the gene pool of chicken thiefs I guess. (This really happened! It's unbelievable!)

 

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

~Mildred Loving

[suzybluecheese]

It is not the Catholic church or ANY church that gets to define it, which is why this is so frustrating, It is a billions of years old concept that was there before Christianity, it helped in the evolutionary process, otherwise you wouldn't be here. We who want to keep that law in place see the inherant value of it, though all these billions of years, and think perhaps, these last 50 years might be a drop in the bucket of our history, so let's not fool it.

 

 

You are fighting against the natural law and rights of man that have been in place forever and ever amen. It was prejudice against blacks (notice most of the resistance came from the south where slavery was a part of the culture) that perpetuated laws against interracial marriage, and it is no way a civil rights argument.

 

 

Are you saying that it isn't about the law of the land or biblical law, it is about evolution?

[Spy Car]

Besides, most of us here are women. If there were a couple thousand men having this discussion, I guarantee it would be very different in substance. Very different.

 

 

I'm a man (and a heterosexual one at that) and I firmly support marriage equality.

 

Bill

[Jen in NY]

I'm listening to some audio from the SCOTUS DOMA debate right now on NPR All Things Considered. It's very interesting.

Anyone know how to listen to all of it?

[PineFarmMom]

Deleted...because I know better than to "go there" on the internet.

[Slartibartfast]

:hurray: :hurray:

 

I'm fully comfortable with my views as well. Just because an opinion has the appearance of being the "popular" opinion, doesn't make it true or right. Unlike the opposing side to this argument, I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. I'm not fine with people making new laws that try to bring validity to a sinful choice or with people trying to compare that choice to TRUE civil rights of the past, which have to do with racial inequalities, which were the true inequalities. Apples and oranges and so very insulting to the suffering they encountered!!

 

There is the idea out there that everyone should have freedom to choose what they believe. Reality says that the only accepted choices are those that don't reflect Christianity and a Biblical worldview. If your opinions line up with God's Word, WATCH OUT!!! It actually is persectution (even though those in opposition throw tantrums when people say it) just like verbal bullying is still bullying.

 

Here is my sign:

 

 

May God be true and every man a liar!!

 

 

 

Wait, is this the sign for being a Christian and supporting those who want to get gay married??

 

I am getting confused.

 

I don't care what is popular. I am in the DEEP SOUTH. Do you really think my views on this issue are popular there?

[PachiSusan]

 

 

Wait, is this the sign for being a Christian and supporting those who want to get gay married??

 

I am getting confused.

 

 

I don't care what is popular. I am in the DEEP SOUTH. Do you really think my views are popular there?

 

 

As far as I understand, it means the exact opposite: They do not support gay marriage and their basis is Jesus Christ.

[Slartibartfast]

As far as I understand, it means the exact opposite: They do not support gay marriage and their basis is Jesus Christ.

 

 

I have seen a lot of changes to the sign today from bacon equal signs, batman equal signs, Dalek equal signs, and Bert and Ernie equal signs. I would take it to be saying someone is Christian and in support.

[nmoira]

 

 

As far as I understand, it means the exact opposite: They do not support gay marriage and their basis is Jesus Christ.

 

 

She might want to change the colours then, because that's not obvious to the casual glance.

[Slartibartfast]

She might want to change the colours then, because that's not obvious to the casual glance.

 

 

I am in agreement.

[Parrothead]

Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer!

 

:hurray:

 

 

(I'm never going to get caught up with this thread. You people stop posting.)

[PachiSusan]

I have seen a lot of changes to the sign today from bacon equal signs, batman equal signs, Dalek equal signs, and Bert and Ernie equal signs. I would take it to be saying someone is Christian and in support.

 

 

Some FB acquaintances I know are gonna be pretty embarrassed if that is true, because some people I know are using it as I described. :huh:

 

This is what it came from and explains it: