Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[one...two...tree 2,762]

ooohhh just had a thought. someone kinda touched on it earlier. the reason I would oppose gay maariage would be if it force my church to marry gays.

i mean gay marriage in a legal sense bothers me not one iota. hell, even for it. but maybe if we can work it out so that churches would not be forced to allow gay marriages then I think most ppl would aggree to it. i think that is the biggest stumbling block.

no?

Daniel

:energetic:

In the Catholic Church, marriage is a holy sacrament (like baptism, holy communion) that is outside of any state or federal jurisdiction, so even if the government permits gays to marry, the churches would not have any legal obligation to recognize the marriage nor could they ever be legally forced to do so.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

ooohhh just had a thought. someone kinda touched on it earlier. the reason I would oppose gay maariage would be if it force my church to marry gays.

i mean gay marriage in a legal sense bothers me not one iota. hell, even for it. but maybe if we can work it out so that churches would not be forced to allow gay marriages then I think most ppl would aggree to it. i think that is the biggest stumbling block.

no?

Daniel

:energetic:

In the Catholic Church, marriage is a holy sacrament (like baptism, holy communion) that is outside of any state or federal jurisdiction, so even if the government permits gays to marry, the churches would not have any legal obligation to recognize the marriage nor could they ever be legally forced to do so.

what makes you so sure they could not be leggaly forced to do so. the mormon church was forced to cahnge one of its practics. and if some church 'believed' in slavery, would not that be forced to change?

Daniel

:energetic:

[ceriserose 1]

Also, for people who are very concerned with what the Bible has to say on the matter, perhaps some background:

Leviticus 18:22 is the passage that directly says that men should not have sex with other men, BUT... as seen in a larger context, all of Leviticus is about various aspects of Hebrew Law, INCLUDING MANY dietary restrictions and Leviticus 19:19, which states 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material' -- and how many of us have cotton-poly blends in our closet?

Lev 19:27 states 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.' Eh-hem...

Lev 20 speaks about all the different sexual practices that are cause for execution.

My point is: in ALL of this, why do people only focus on the one little line that addresses homosexuality? Why not follow it ALL then? Is it because men having short hair and shirts made from mixed fabrics doesn't make people as uncomfortable as man-on-man sex?

They'll tell you that (basically) the New Testament supercedes Leviticus and makes it redundant. That said I really hope this doesn't turn into a theological discussion about the 'sinful nature of homosexuality'. Always seems that scripture pops up in these threads as a way of helping religious types avoid dealing with the flaws in their argument. We'll hear how homosexuality is a sin and is unnatural, and how marriage is "God's institution between men and women" - but nothing related to the practical aspects.

Oh yeah, I really hope this doesn't turn into a Bible-quoting extravaganza either lol. But that line Lev 18:27 is the one used most commonly to justify calling homosexuality an abomination. I was trying to point out how little of Leviticus is carried into a vast majority of Christians' lives today, so to use that one tiny line from an enormous book of the Bible to justify calling something a sin is silly, considering how only a few other things in surrounded lines are still followed. And that if the New Testament overturns Hebrew Law, then it overturns everything, not just the things Christians consider irrelevent nowadays. I mean, if a person thinks homosexuality is bad because it grosses them out, then that's fine and it's their right to feel that way, but at least own up to that fact and not pretend they dislike it because they're soooooo concerned about what the Bible says.

New Testament commentary on homosexuality is in Romans 1. So even with removing the Old Testament scriptures from the equation, Christians will offer that as reason for the belief. (Posting the scriptures not as an extravaganza, but for information. )

Romans 1, NIV

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Caladan 19]

ooohhh just had a thought. someone kinda touched on it earlier. the reason I would oppose gay maariage would be if it force my church to marry gays.

i mean gay marriage in a legal sense bothers me not one iota. hell, even for it. but maybe if we can work it out so that churches would not be forced to allow gay marriages then I think most ppl would aggree to it. i think that is the biggest stumbling block.

no?

Daniel

:energetic:

In the Catholic Church, marriage is a holy sacrament (like baptism, holy communion) that is outside of any state or federal jurisdiction, so even if the government permits gays to marry, the churches would not have any legal obligation to recognize the marriage nor could they ever be legally forced to do so.

what makes you so sure they could not be leggaly forced to do so. the mormon church was forced to cahnge one of its practics. and if some church 'believed' in slavery, would not that be forced to change?

Daniel

:energetic:

Separation of church and state, plus that marriage is also (though not solely) a civil contract. It's something which, in our hypothetical the state would allow as far as it can, but it says nothing about a religious contract. The state doesn't get to judge on spiritual matters as it is. It's not quite parallel with the slavery case, as you'd have to have the state allowing slavery and the church forbidding it or something.

Polygamy's a harder case, but I suspect that it wouldn't go down that way. The Mormons had to give up polygamy in order for Utah to be granted statehood, and Utah at the time was an almost entirely Mormon settlement.

And as it stands, all that's illegal in Utah is being civilly married to more than one wife. You can come up with whatever non-civil living-together arrangements that you want. (Assuming you're not committing statuatory rape with minors.)

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

ooohhh just had a thought. someone kinda touched on it earlier. the reason I would oppose gay maariage would be if it force my church to marry gays.

i mean gay marriage in a legal sense bothers me not one iota. hell, even for it. but maybe if we can work it out so that churches would not be forced to allow gay marriages then I think most ppl would aggree to it. i think that is the biggest stumbling block.

no?

Daniel

:energetic:

In the Catholic Church, marriage is a holy sacrament (like baptism, holy communion) that is outside of any state or federal jurisdiction, so even if the government permits gays to marry, the churches would not have any legal obligation to recognize the marriage nor could they ever be legally forced to do so.

what makes you so sure they could not be leggaly forced to do so. the mormon church was forced to cahnge one of its practics. and if some church 'believed' in slavery, would not that be forced to change?

Daniel

:energetic:

Separation of church and state, plus that marriage is also (though not solely) a civil contract. It's something which, in our hypothetical the state would allow as far as it can, but it says nothing about a religious contract. The state doesn't get to judge on spiritual matters as it is. It's not quite parallel with the slavery case, as you'd have to have the state allowing slavery and the church forbidding it or something.

Polygamy's a harder case, but I suspect that it wouldn't go down that way. The Mormons had to give up polygamy in order for Utah to be granted statehood, and Utah at the time was an almost entirely Mormon settlement.

And as it stands, all that's illegal in Utah is being civilly married to more than one wife. You can come up with whatever non-civil living-together arrangements that you want. (Assuming you're not committing statuatory rape with minors.)

hmmm you see, you can make those arguments, but you would need a more ironclad arrangement in order to convince the antigay marriage public to agree to this. therefore any law that is passed to open up marrigae needs to include the clause that churches are not required to accept gay marriages.

Daniel

:energetic:

[mybackpages 0]

ooohhh just had a thought. someone kinda touched on it earlier. the reason I would oppose gay maariage would be if it force my church to marry gays.

i mean gay marriage in a legal sense bothers me not one iota. hell, even for it. but maybe if we can work it out so that churches would not be forced to allow gay marriages then I think most ppl would aggree to it. i think that is the biggest stumbling block.

no?

Daniel

:energetic:

In the Catholic Church, marriage is a holy sacrament (like baptism, holy communion) that is outside of any state or federal jurisdiction, so even if the government permits gays to marry, the churches would not have any legal obligation to recognize the marriage nor could they ever be legally forced to do so.

what makes you so sure they could not be leggaly forced to do so. the mormon church was forced to cahnge one of its practics. and if some church 'believed' in slavery, would not that be forced to change?

Daniel

:energetic:

Separation of church and state, plus that marriage is also (though not solely) a civil contract. It's something which, in our hypothetical the state would allow as far as it can, but it says nothing about a religious contract. The state doesn't get to judge on spiritual matters as it is. It's not quite parallel with the slavery case, as you'd have to have the state allowing slavery and the church forbidding it or something.

Polygamy's a harder case, but I suspect that it wouldn't go down that way. The Mormons had to give up polygamy in order for Utah to be granted statehood, and Utah at the time was an almost entirely Mormon settlement.

And as it stands, all that's illegal in Utah is being civilly married to more than one wife. You can come up with whatever non-civil living-together arrangements that you want. (Assuming you're not committing statuatory rape with minors.)

The Morman church leaders themselves changed their ruling regarding the practive of polygamy (albeit under pressure from the US government to obtain statehood). Several spinter groups continued to practice polygamy and in the late 19th century the Sureme Court heard a case- Reynolds v US - in which one of these splinter Morman practicitioners of polygamy argue he has a right under the first amendment's free exercise clause to continue in this type of marriage. The Court ruled that when the government has a compelling interest to protect the health, welfare and safety of society, government could prohibit religious practice.

The marriage equality law could not force churches to marry same sex couples. The law would only apply to government authorities who would be prohibited from denying smae sex couples the right to legal recogniztion of their union.

[meauxna 15]

you can make those arguments, but you would need a more ironclad arrangement in order to convince the antigay marriage public to agree to this. therefore any law that is passed to open up marrigae needs to include the clause that churches are not required to accept gay marriages.

How would anything change from today?

I can't get married in the Catholic Church; I don't qualify under their rules. I'm sure there are a dozen other faiths that wouldn't touch a marriage ceremony for me.

What would be different? How do you get the math "because X is permitted' to equal 'X MUST be performed'.

We're talking about the LEGAL aspect of marriage, not the ceremonial.

You can go get married in a church if someone will do the ceremony. That doesn't make you married in the eyes of the law, UNTIL you get a marriage license and record it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

ooohhh just had a thought. someone kinda touched on it earlier. the reason I would oppose gay maariage would be if it force my church to marry gays.

i mean gay marriage in a legal sense bothers me not one iota. hell, even for it. but maybe if we can work it out so that churches would not be forced to allow gay marriages then I think most ppl would aggree to it. i think that is the biggest stumbling block.

no?

Daniel

:energetic:

In the Catholic Church, marriage is a holy sacrament (like baptism, holy communion) that is outside of any state or federal jurisdiction, so even if the government permits gays to marry, the churches would not have any legal obligation to recognize the marriage nor could they ever be legally forced to do so.

what makes you so sure they could not be leggaly forced to do so. the mormon church was forced to cahnge one of its practics. and if some church 'believed' in slavery, would not that be forced to change?

Daniel

:energetic:

Because you can currently be married legally but the marriage is not valid as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Nobody's civil rights are denied by it either.

[Cristy 4]

There are many churches that welcome gay people....because they know that their god loves all people.

Who says all gay people want to get married in church? I did not get married in church and I am still married aren't I?

Any God that would discriminate people because of homosexuality is not a God I would worship.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

you can make those arguments, but you would need a more ironclad arrangement in order to convince the antigay marriage public to agree to this. therefore any law that is passed to open up marrigae needs to include the clause that churches are not required to accept gay marriages.

How would anything change from today?

I can't get married in the Catholic Church; I don't qualify under their rules. I'm sure there are a dozen other faiths that wouldn't touch a marriage ceremony for me.

What would be different? How do you get the math "because X is permitted' to equal 'X MUST be performed'.

We're talking about the LEGAL aspect of marriage, not the ceremonial.

You can go get married in a church if someone will do the ceremony. That doesn't make you married in the eyes of the law, UNTIL you get a marriage license and record it.

believe me, i understand what you are saying and agree with it. but, the argument is political. you will have convinve the amrican public that opening up marriage to gays will not 'corrupt' their churches/belief system.

Daniel

:energetic:

[mybackpages 0]

believe me, i understand what you are saying and agree with it. but, the argument is political. you will have convinve the amrican public that opening up marriage to gays will not 'corrupt' their churches/belief system.

Daniel

:energetic:

Exactly, and this is where the pro-marriage equality people have not been successful. YET.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You can go get married in a church if someone will do the ceremony. That doesn't make you married in the eyes of the law, UNTIL you get a marriage license and record it.

That's not entirely accurate. More than the license and record, the marriage has to meet recognized legal standards to be considered valid. See, you can get married and are considered married in the US even if no US authority ever issued a license or recorded the marriage.

Nothing but our immigration paperwork is on file with US authorities in regards to our marriage. We never obtained a US license, nor recorded the marriage anywhere in the US. Yet we are still considered legally married. So, one can get married in a ceremony alone and be considered legally married as long as the marriage meets the relevant legal standards.

On the other hand, a gay couple could obtain license and record of their marriage in, say, Denmark. That, however, still doesn't make their marriage valid here in the good ole' USofA.

[ceriserose 1]

you can make those arguments, but you would need a more ironclad arrangement in order to convince the antigay marriage public to agree to this. therefore any law that is passed to open up marrigae needs to include the clause that churches are not required to accept gay marriages.

How would anything change from today?

I can't get married in the Catholic Church; I don't qualify under their rules. I'm sure there are a dozen other faiths that wouldn't touch a marriage ceremony for me.

What would be different? How do you get the math "because X is permitted' to equal 'X MUST be performed'.

We're talking about the LEGAL aspect of marriage, not the ceremonial.

You can go get married in a church if someone will do the ceremony. That doesn't make you married in the eyes of the law, UNTIL you get a marriage license and record it.

believe me, i understand what you are saying and agree with it. but, the argument is political. you will have convinve the amrican public that opening up marriage to gays will not 'corrupt' their churches/belief system.

Daniel

:energetic:

Anymore than they have themselves.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

you can make those arguments, but you would need a more ironclad arrangement in order to convince the antigay marriage public to agree to this. therefore any law that is passed to open up marrigae needs to include the clause that churches are not required to accept gay marriages.

How would anything change from today?

I can't get married in the Catholic Church; I don't qualify under their rules. I'm sure there are a dozen other faiths that wouldn't touch a marriage ceremony for me.

What would be different? How do you get the math "because X is permitted' to equal 'X MUST be performed'.

We're talking about the LEGAL aspect of marriage, not the ceremonial.

You can go get married in a church if someone will do the ceremony. That doesn't make you married in the eyes of the law, UNTIL you get a marriage license and record it.

believe me, i understand what you are saying and agree with it. but, the argument is political. you will have convinve the amrican public that opening up marriage to gays will not 'corrupt' their churches/belief system.

Daniel

:energetic:

Anymore than they have themselves.

hahaha smart aleck! we need to be prim and proper around here mrs caps.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Carol&Marc 0]

Civil rights? how far they go? ponder this!

ACLU defends child-molester group

Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: December 13, 2000

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Julie Foster

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

Thanks A.C.L.U. Fine job?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=18029