The Canadian House of Commons has passed legislation to legalize gay marriage.  Prime Minister Paul Martin approves, and the Senate is expected to pass the bill into law within the next month.

Canada would join just two other nations, Belgium and the Netherlands,  to recognize full gay marriage, although several other Western European nations recognize Civil Unions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-canada29jun29,1,114089.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Great to hear!

Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's right. Abortion has been legal for 4 decades now. In most countries, anyone can buy a gun without ID, and still not have as many gun homicides as the US. I feel sorry for those that feel legislating morality or immorality will make them happy. :(

The government should get out of the marriage business.  It's between two people and nobody else.

Good for Canada! The US should take example from them, they seem to be doing a lot of things right.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's right. Abortion has been legal for 4 decades now. In most countries, anyone can buy a gun without ID, and still not have as many gun homicides as the US. I feel sorry for those that feel legislating morality or immorality will make them happy. :(


And who are those people? If two men want to get married and think that it will make their lives happier, than this legislation will indeed help to make them happier. And it has nothing to do with whether or not SOME people think it's morally right or wrong. I've got morals, and they happen to say that if people love each other, they should be able to express it through marriage.

YAY CANADA!!!!!





Cat

Once again, Canada shows it is the enlightened country in North America, while down south, Bush has tuned the US back to the Neaderthal, knuckle scrapeing, Stone Ages.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's right. Abortion has been legal for 4 decades now. In most countries, anyone can buy a gun without ID, and still not have as many gun homicides as the US. I feel sorry for those that feel legislating morality or immorality will make them happy. :(


Being about freedom, it seems to me, is leting people run their own lives as they like as long as they do no harm to others.  Certainly gay marriage does no harm to me or anyone else.  The abortion issue could be argued from either perspective depending on your definition of the beginning of human life, and there are biblical sources to support both sides - as references to "the breath of life", so lets put that aside and focus on the topic.  Regarding guns, most country are highly restrictive of gun ownership (Canada bring an exception).

I oppose legislating "morality", ie legislating which groups can have access to which rights based on the moral code of some citizens.  If you don't want to marry a gay partner, don't do it.  If you don't want and abortion, don't get one, but don't impose your moral strictures on me.  If states are to sanction marriage, and give married couples advantages, then all couples, regardless of race, gender, whatever, should be equallably eligable for those benefits.  By all means, follow your moral imperatives, just

KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF OUR LAWS

Horray for Canada.

Go Canada!



All I have to say.

i have no problem with gay cilvil unions.....

my only problem with marriage is the religious one...because I see marriage as a religious term. 

I guess its just symantics. 



So I guess go Canada

I see no problem with gay marriage either.  Like DC said, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Although, because churches are places of worship, I certainly don't think churches should be required to perform or acknowledge gay marriage for religious reasons, I do think each church as well as each state (or even county) government should be able to set their own rules on this issue.

I feel sorry for those that feel legislating morality or immorality will make them happy. :(



That's what the Confederates used to say when those holier than you Northerners kept going on and on about freeing the slaves.

That's what the Confederates used to say when those holier than you Northerners kept going on and on about freeing the slaves.


Completely different.  The slaves were being hurt.  The slaves were being forced to do things against their will.  Nobody is forcing anyone to marry anyone. 

I oppose legislating "morality", ie legislating which groups can have access to which rights based on the moral code of some citizens.  If you don't want to marry a gay partner, don't do it.  If you don't want and abortion, don't get one, but don't impose your moral strictures on me.  If states are to sanction marriage, and give married couples advantages, then all couples, regardless of race, gender, whatever, should be equallably eligable for those benefits. 

Amen!

And Go Canada!! 

I think it's great!

If we change the US Constitution so that gays & lesbians can never get married, it would be the same as telling blacks that they don't have any civil rights.  I think it's time for another civil rights movement in this country.

Churches should not have to perform the ceremonies, but aren't we supposed to separate church and state anyway?  It seems to me that the only time people want to separate them is when it benefits themselves.

If it is not legalized in this country, then I think there should be regulations on 'partner benefits' that some companies provide to their employees.  Some companies allow for same sex couples to have benefits, but how do they determine that the employee really has a partner, and not just a roommate that they decided needed the benefits?  If they are allowing unmarried, same-sex partners to have benefits, then they should allow unmarried, heterosexual couples have the same benefits.  The solution to that is to legalize gay/lesbian marriage.

GO CANADA!!!

I see no problem with gay marriage either.  Like DC said, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Although, because churches are places of worship, I certainly don't think churches should be required to perform or acknowledge gay marriage for religious reasons, I do think each church as well as each state (or even county) government should be able to set their own rules on this issue.


I think it's great that they aren't trying to restrict it.  If it weren't for all the commotion in the US, I think you'd find most gay people don't even want to get married.

I believe religious freedom extends to a church limiting who they marry and who they don't.  Before I could be married in a Catholic church, I had to attend classes with my wife, and talk with the priest, etc.  It's always been up to the church whether people should be married, and they are free to refuse to marry based on whatever criteria they want.

I know the Lutherans in certain European countries alllow gay marriage (but not the US), and theres a few protestant religions that allow gay members now in the US. 

It's odd that the bible mentions homosexuality twice very vaguely and mentions helping the poor hundreds of times, yet the "Christian" Republicans campaign against homosexulaity and slash money to anyone vaguely poor.

Completely different. The slaves were being hurt. The slaves were being forced to do things against their will. Nobody is forcing anyone to marry anyone.


I know.  I was just trying to say it's oversimplistic to say not to legislate morality.  That's what most laws are.  The point is what principles are behind the morality we legislate.  Is it equality and a workable society for everyone, or is it privilige for some people over other people.

I think it's great that they aren't trying to restrict it.  If it weren't for all the commotion in the US, I think you'd find most gay people don't even want to get married.

I believe religious freedom extends to a church limiting who they marry and who they don't.  Before I could be married in a Catholic church, I had to attend classes with my wife, and talk with the priest, etc.  It's always been up to the church whether people should be married, and they are free to refuse to marry based on whatever criteria they want.

I know the Lutherans in certain European countries alllow gay marriage (but not the US), and theres a few protestant religions that allow gay members now in the US. 

It's odd that the bible mentions homosexuality twice very vaguely and mentions helping the poor hundreds of times, yet the "Christian" Republicans campaign against homosexulaity and slash money to anyone vaguely poor.


I can see why Christians might oppose homosexuality based on what they are taught at church.  My husband grew up Catholic, going to church, Sunday school, communion, etc.  At around age 16 when he was allowed to make his own choices, he stopped going.  Some of the Catholic beliefs have stayed with him, but he only applies those beliefs to himself.  If he were gay, he'd be facing a dilemma.  He gives up meat during lent, but that is his choice and he doesn't feel his beliefs are necessary for everyone.  While he's eating rice and salad for dinner during lent, I might be sitting right across from him eating roast beef.

Point is, you're entitled to your beliefs and your morals as long as they don't hurt others.  But your beliefs and morals are for YOU, not for you to push onto everybody else.

Before Carlos and I were married, we lived together for about 5 years. We often wondered about having me on his health insurence he got from work. They allowed same-sex couples to claim their partners, why not heterosexual partners? Their explanation was he couldn't claim me because we COULD get married, same-sex couples could NOT. After Vermont passed the Civil Unions, his work rewrote the claims. Only CUed same-sex couples (as well as married heterosexual couples) could claim their partners. I give them credit for making the policy fair to all.



Cat

The government should get out of the marriage business.  It's between two people and nobody else.


Yes, this is one of my big pet peeves.  No one should be legally married.  You want to commit to someone, it's between the two (three?) of you... and your religious institution... or your Elk's club... or whatever means something to you.  It's none of my business who has sex with who, or who wants to have kids with who, or wants to spend the rest of their life with who.  These are not meaningful concerns for society at large.  If people want to commit to each other, there shouldn't be any tax benefits or burdens.  If there are going to be tax penalties or burdens, they should based on people's economic relationship to each other, which may or may not relate to a 'marital' situation.  Child custody issues, life and health insurance, powers of attorney... any and all legal issues can (and quite often are) very easily managed outside this ridiculous notion of 'legal marriage'...

I can see why Christians might oppose homosexuality based on what they are taught at church.  My husband grew up Catholic, going to church, Sunday school, communion, etc.  At around age 16 when he was allowed to make his own choices, he stopped going.  Some of the Catholic beliefs have stayed with him, but he only applies those beliefs to himself.  If he were gay, he'd be facing a dilemma.  He gives up meat during lent, but that is his choice and he doesn't feel his beliefs are necessary for everyone.  While he's eating rice and salad for dinner during lent, I might be sitting right across from him eating roast beef.

Point is, you're entitled to your beliefs and your morals as long as they don't hurt others.  But your beliefs and morals are for YOU, not for you to push onto everybody else.



YES!!! and that is suppose to be what religion is for, YOU'RE OWN MORALS!  

Personally, I am a Catholic, but I hardly follow my own religion.  Yet, I still force myself to follow a few of it's moral customs like not eating meat on Fridays during Lent.  I dont force others to follow this, I only impose it on myself (and not very well btw, as Ive accidentally broke it a few times).  But this is what religion is meant for: YOUR OWN MORAL CUSTOMS.

Now, my question about the term Marriage...that is a religious term.  But after reading what some people wrote here, ive realized something else so Im amending what I wrote:  If a Church wants to let you marry inside their Church and under their religion, then it is up to them.  The Church decides.  

The Chruch is something we join by choice, and if you dont like what the church you belong to is saying, leave it.  It's that simple.  If your church doesnt let you and your gay partner marry, then leave it.  They have the right to say what happens under their roof, and you need to respect that.  

Organized religion (especially the Roman Catholic Church) is getting more and more corrupt.  A belief in God and Jesus, etc...and a set of your own moral values that you personally follow is all you need to be a Christian.  I dont go to Church on Sunday, but that doesnt make me feel like any less a Catholic.  I still believe in God, and I still believe Jesus is the son of God.  

We were very lucky when we got married. We wanted to have a Wiccan wedding but I didn't know how to go about finding someone to officiate. I belong to a yahoo pagan group and sent out an e-mail and it was answered. We met with the guy and he went over what WE wanted, what we wanted to include, exclude, etc. We did want to have a totally "non-traditional" wedding but we did include a lot of ancient rituals that most people today do not do anymore-like handfasting (litereally "tying the knot") and jumping over the broom (and then having everyone tie colored ribbons on the broom which hangs in our front room today). We wrote our own vows-including stuff from The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. We got married in the Old Chapel on the college campus which is a beautiful building that is on the Registry of Historical Buildings. (We met at the college so it was very appropriate-not to mention that we could use it for free.  ;D )

When we told people that it was going to be a Wiccan ceremony, no one knew what to expect. We told everyone that we weren't going to be sacrificing little furry animals (yeah, I was being facetious).  One person we invited didn't come because it was a Wiccan ceremony. Her lost-and we no longer are in contact with her (for other reasons but that was the icing on the cake). After the ceremony, EVERY commented how beautiful the ceremony was and how they loved it.


So to get off topic. Just wanted to share.  ;D  But we did have 2 same-sex couples there-we were supposed to have a third but they stood us up.  >:(




Cat

We were very lucky when we got married. We wanted to have a Wiccan wedding but I didn't know how to go about finding someone to officiate. I belong to a yahoo pagan group and sent out an e-mail and it was answered. We met with the guy and he went over what WE wanted, what we wanted to include, exclude, etc. We did want to have a totally "non-traditional" wedding but we did include a lot of ancient rituals that most people today do not do anymore-like handfasting (litereally "tying the knot") and jumping over the broom (and then having everyone tie colored ribbons on the broom which hangs in our front room today). We wrote our own vows-including stuff from The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. We got married in the Old Chapel on the college campus which is a beautiful building that is on the Registry of Historical Buildings. (We met at the college so it was very appropriate-not to mention that we could use it for free.  ;D )

When we told people that it was going to be a Wiccan ceremony, no one knew what to expect. We told everyone that we weren't going to be sacrificing little furry animals (yeah, I was being facetious).  One person we invited didn't come because it was a Wiccan ceremony. Her lost-and we no longer are in contact with her (for other reasons but that was the icing on the cake). After the ceremony, EVERY commented how beautiful the ceremony was and how they loved it.


So to get off topic. Just wanted to share.  ;D  But we did have 2 same-sex couples there-we were supposed to have a third but they stood us up.  >:(




Cat
Very cool!
People are so ignorant when it comes to Wicca. I have had to explain many times it is not worshiping Satan or evil. There is so much good and wonderful aspects of it... if people only knew.

I see no problem with gay marriage either.  Like DC said, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Although, because churches are places of worship, I certainly don't think churches should be required to perform or acknowledge gay marriage for religious reasons, I do think each church as well as each state (or even county) government should be able to set their own rules on this issue.


In a way you have hit on the problem.  Religious leaders are santioned by states to "perform" marriages, but marriages are recognized by the states, hence the "marriage licence".  Cat and I could have put one of our cats in its kitty box, put it on an alter, and publicly "married" each other, but the state would not have recognized the union, because the cat could not have signed the licence.  We could have gone to a justice of the peace - no religious overtones there - and said our vows.  I would not force church officials to perform marriages that their religions forbid, but I would not deny the legal status of "married" to people because some churches don't approve of the union.  Since I see this as an issue regarding "equal protection" I believe there should be a federal standard that applies to all states, and that garantees concenting adults equal protection. 

My daughter's best friend (and, I think, my x wife) got ordained over the computer and are licenced to perform marriages in California and Vermont, sanctioned by those two states.  They should be able to marry any pair of concenting adults that are consistant with their moral values.

Completely different.  The slaves were being hurt.  The slaves were being forced to do things against their will.  Nobody is forcing anyone to marry anyone. 


No, its not completely different.  I'll bet you $$$ to donuts that if given a chance the majotity of the white population of our southern states, and some northern ones too, would vote to repeal the civil war amendments and re-introduce slavery, or at least to re-instate Plessy V Furguson.  The struggle has to do with extending freedom to a class of people who now face descrimination.  While nobody is forcing anyone to marry anyone, the laws of most states PREVENT some people from marrying those they would like to marry, so you could say that tyhe law is forcing them to engage in promiscuous, extra-marital sex, which most religious conservative condemn and which most sociologist say is socially counter-productive.

Very cool!
People are so ignorant when it comes to Wicca. I have had to explain many times it is not worshiping Satan or evil. There is so much good and wonderful aspects of it... if people only knew.



Raised Catholic, I have never been very spiritual, so I guess I'd describe myself as an agnostic - "There are more things under heavan and earth than imagines in your simple philosophy" - and as an agnostic, not interested in pondering the unknowable, or subscribing to the conclusions of other about it.  Is Jesus the son of God?  How the he11 do I know.  How can God - if there is a "God" in the Judeo-Christian context - expect me to know?  Why should I believe the writings of a bunch of 2000 year old Jews, Arabs, and Romans over the views of 2000 year old Aztecs, Incas, etc?  Wicca asks me to believe none of that stuff, only that there may be powers higher than my own, which there clearly are - I can't stop a hurricane, or even a thunderstorm, or even a spring rain.  It dictates no formulas to either revenence or suplicate those powers, nor does it suggest that you can suplicate them.  It does suggest that we might reverence them, in our own way. 

And who are those people? If two men want to get married and think that it will make their lives happier, than this legislation will indeed help to make them happier. And it has nothing to do with whether or not SOME people think it's morally right or wrong. I've got morals, and they happen to say that if people love each other, they should be able to express it through marriage.



This is when respect and like come down to two different very very different words.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's right. Abortion has been legal for 4 decades now. In most countries, anyone can buy a gun without ID, and still not have as many gun homicides as the US. I feel sorry for those that feel legislating morality or immorality will make them happy. :(


I hear you man, but in this world morals and values mean JACK SQUAT, unless of course there is a LAW behind them, or in front of them.

This is when respect and like come down to two different very very different words.



I hear you man, but in this world morals and values mean JACK SQUAT, unless of course there is a LAW behind them, or in front of them.


What you fail to understand is that no one is forcing their moral (or lack their of) views down your throat.  And as a matter of fact, YOUR morals and values do mean much less that "JACK SQUAT" to me.  I respect your right to hold them, and I respect you for holding true to the (to the extent that you do - of which I know, nor care not a wit).  I do resent, and I will oppose with every fiber of my being, any attemt on your part to make ME confirm to YOUR morals and values.  Just as yours are none of my business or concern (unless they allow you to harm me or mine), mine should be of no concern to you (again, unless they harm you or yours).  I can well understand religious people opposing gay marriage on biblical grounds, but it seems to me that in at least some cases those "religious" grounds are a shield for more profound fears, like regarfing one's own sexuality. 

Gays didn't instigate all the gay marriage argy-bargy, the homophobes of America did.  Christian fundamentalists need to feel morally superior to others in order to feel good about themselves.  The right-wing Christians and other reactionaries who are skittish about change are easily manipulated by politicians.  The gay marriage issue helped to confound the priorities of bigots during the last election.  Our legislative theocrats cried, "You are threatening a five-thousand year old institution!"  
They never bothered to mention the fact that until the 19th century "marriage" and "love" did not go hand in hand, so to speak.  Throughout most of human history, marriage was an arranged agreement between families for the sake of socio-economic status.  How the boy and the girl felt about it mattered little, if at all.
Another forgotten use of the institution of marriage dates back to the middle ages.  Christian men sometimes married eachother in a bond of spiritual love.  This was monastic and platonic, but it was marriage between men nonetheless.

But the evangelical dipsy-doodles of America probably imagined marriage was always about veils, rings, flowers, a big white cake with plastic figurines of the couple on top, and a powder-blue limo with cans tied behind it.

What the right-wing wants to do is for the first time in our history to amend the Constitution to restrict the rights of a certain class of citizens.  I might not be so vociferously in favor of gay marriage rights if the Christian conservatives weren't fighting for the "no gay marriage" amendment.  That's what it is, really.  The talk of polygamy and insurance policies are just red herrings.

Furthermore, this is a legal matter, not a religious matter.  No cleric and no church will be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.  The issue really boils down to homophobia versus inclusiveness.

Furthermore, this is a legal matter, not a religious matter.  No cleric and no church will be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.  The issue really boils down to homophobia versus inclusiveness.


That is so true...

That is so true...


My point exactly.

Looks like Spain has legalized it as well.  Hooray!

And hopefully someday, the U.S. will catch up...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_eu/spain_gay_marriage

WAY TO GO SPAIN!!

WTG Canada AND Spain :)

I am a part of the United Church of Canada. The minister at my church is openly gay and has been performing wedding ceremonies for gays for a while now. And no one in the church or our city seems to mind. I'm just happy that the government is now going to recognize them as being a married couple :)

YAY SPAIN!!!




Cat

No, its not completely different.  I'll bet you $$$ to donuts that if given a chance the majotity of the white population of our southern states, and some northern ones too, would vote to repeal the civil war amendments and re-introduce slavery, or at least to re-instate Plessy V Furguson.  The struggle has to do with extending freedom to a class of people who now face descrimination.  While nobody is forcing anyone to marry anyone, the laws of most states PREVENT some people from marrying those they would like to marry, so you could say that tyhe law is forcing them to engage in promiscuous, extra-marital sex, which most religious conservative condemn and which most sociologist say is socially counter-productive.


I was saying that supporting gay marriage is completely different than supporting slavery, in response to someone who had compared the two as bringing morals into politics.

What you fail to understand is that no one is forcing their moral (or lack their of) views down your throat.  And as a matter of fact, YOUR morals and values do mean much less that "JACK SQUAT" to me.  I respect your right to hold them, and I respect you for holding true to the (to the extent that you do - of which I know, nor care not a wit).  I do resent, and I will oppose with every fiber of my being, any attemt on your part to make ME confirm to YOUR morals and values.  Just as yours are none of my business or concern (unless they allow you to harm me or mine), mine should be of no concern to you (again, unless they harm you or yours).  I can well understand religious people opposing gay marriage on biblical grounds, but it seems to me that in at least some cases those "religious" grounds are a shield for more profound fears, like regarfing one's own sexuality. 


Well then you shouldn't be opposed by anything I say. 

I'm not exactly for gay marriage because my religion teaches against it (don't kill me yet) but I believe everyone has the right to make their own choices in life and I respect that because some countries don't even allow people to own a bible or a book of other faith so I guess I'll say I'm happy that people (in Canada) now have the freedom to marry who they choose even though it may sound wrong to people of my own religion. I'm all for freedom of choice and freedom to have your own beliefs for without it I would not even be able to practice Christianity.

I'm not exactly for gay marriage because my religion teaches against it (don't kill me yet) but I believe everyone has the right to make their own choices in life and I respect that because some countries don't even allow people to own a bible or a book of other faith so I guess I'll say I'm happy that people (in Canada) now have the freedom to marry who they choose even though it may sound wrong to people of my own religion. I'm all for freedom of choice and freedom to have your own beliefs for without it I would not even be able to practice Christianity.


Me and you are sort of on the same page.

I have no problem with Two men getting married. I have no problem with two women getting married.

I have lesbian and gay friends. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a heterosexual with a some homosexuals as friends.

What I have a problem with is two men getting married or two women getting married and saying that they are uniting in a form that clearly states one man and one woman.

If they love eachother great, no one should be able to tell them to love someone else of a different sex, and no one should have the right to tell them that they can't live and love eacother together.

BUT on the same hand, they shouldn't have the right to change the Word of GOD, just because they feel like it.

This as you can see is clearly not taken from the do whatever, whenever you want approach of a liberal.

I don't know whether all the outrage about people "shoving their values/beliefs/morality down our throats" is naïve  or cynical.  How can we talk about the unfairness of people imposing their morality on us, when we all do it all the time? 

"Everyone should have the right to affordable basic health care."  Is that not a moral judgement?  "Poor children should be given the same access to a good basic public education as rich ones"  What is that but a moral judgment?  Employers should not be permitted to discriminate in hiring or promotion decision based on an applicant's age, race, gender, sexual orientation or physical disability"  Hello – there's that pesky morality again.

As for the idea that a proposed public morality is offensive when it's tainted by a religious orientation, well... I wonder what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King would have to say about that...

Look, if we don't agree with someone's particular moral viewpoint, that's our right, but please...

I don't know whether all the outrage about people "shoving their values/beliefs/morality down our throats" is naïve  or cynical.  How can we talk about the unfairness of people imposing their morality on us, when we all do it all the time? 

"Everyone should have the right to affordable basic health care."  Is that not a moral judgement?  "Poor children should be given the same access to a good basic public education as rich ones"  What is that but a moral judgment?  Employers should not be permitted to discriminate in hiring or promotion decision based on an applicant's age, race, gender, sexual orientation or physical disability"  Hello – there's that pesky morality again.

As for the idea that a proposed public morality is offensive when it's tainted by a religious orientation, well... I wonder what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King would have to say about that...

Look, if we don't agree with someone's particular moral viewpoint, that's our right, but please...


Well, I think most of us specified "morals that don't harm others".

Gay marriage falls into this category, as may stem-cell research (haven't really seen enough scientific evidence to be against it), assisted suicide, abortion (debatable, I know), medicinal marijuana, etc.

Everyone having access to medical care does affect everybody.  If there isn't adequate healthcare, it hurts many people who are financially challenged.  If there is adequate medical care for all, guess who foots the bill??

Discrimination in the workplace also affects the public.  I don't think I need to explain how.

What I have a problem with is two men getting married or two women getting married and saying that they are uniting in a form that clearly states one man and one woman.

If they love eachother great, no one should be able to tell them to love someone else of a different sex, and no one should have the right to tell them that they can't live and love eacother together.

BUT on the same hand, they shouldn't have the right to change the Word of GOD, just because they feel like it.

This as you can see is clearly not taken from the do whatever, whenever you want approach of a liberal.



And see this is where things get fuzzy.  I realize that homosexuality is against your religon.  But I don't think that anyone is trying to force Christianity to accept gay marriage.  People want the Government to accept it.  Religon shouldn't have any part in legislation.  I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in the Bible, and I don't think that gay marriage changes the word of God any more than I think wearing purple shoes changes the word of God.  I didn't marry my husband because I was following God's will, I married him because I am very much in love with him and wish to spend the rest of my life with him.  Don't you think that gay people want to get married for that very same reason?  They're not asking your pastor to give them that right.  They're asking their country to give it to them.

And see this is where things get fuzzy.  I realize that homosexuality is against your religon.  But I don't think that anyone is trying to force Christianity to accept gay marriage.  People want the Government to accept it.  Religon shouldn't have any part in legislation.  I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in the Bible, and I don't think that gay marriage changes the word of God any more than I think wearing purple shoes changes the word of God.  I didn't marry my husband because I was following God's will, I married him because I am very much in love with him and wish to spend the rest of my life with him.  Don't you think that gay people want to get married for that very same reason?  They're not asking your pastor to give them that right.  They're asking their country to give it to them.



Hear, hear! :)

What I have a problem with is two men getting married or two women getting married and saying that they are uniting in a form that clearly states one man and one woman.

If they love eachother great, no one should be able to tell them to love someone else of a different sex, and no one should have the right to tell them that they can't live and love eacother together.

BUT on the same hand, they shouldn't have the right to change the Word of GOD, just because they feel like it.



This sounds like an argument about semantics, not religion. I looked up the dictionary definition of "marriage", and it was defined as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". If that's also the legal definition, then all that needs to be done in change the definition to "the legal union between two people as a married couple".

By the way, there's nothing in the dictionary definition of marriage that states that a marriage has to be recognised by a church, only by the state. Unless the church makes the state law, then there should be no problem with the state recognising a marriage even if the church doesn't.

As for changing the word of God, that's a whole argument for some other thread, especially in light of the Creationist movement recently stating that the King James Bible isn't the real Bible.

Well, I think most of us specified "morals that don't harm others".



Physical 'harm'?  No, but that's a pretty light burden.  It certainly impacts us directly as taxpayers if the goverment provides health care for the poor; if affects us as business owners if the government says you have to pay someone at least $X per hour; it restricts our freedom of choice as employers if the government tells us we can't decide against hiring someone because we have a problem with 50 year old black females. 

Obviously, I'm not saying that these aren't desirable policy -- I'm pointing out that the argument about "imposing values" on others is flawed.

And worse, the argument often reflects a thinly veiled bigotry against people of faith.  We can't blame religion for homophobia.  Homophobes and other bigots use religion -- just as they often use patriotism or whatever else is at their disposal -- to justify their views (when they bother to try to justify them at all).

Hitler and his cronies were not citing Leviticus as they distributed the pink Stars of David.

BUT on the same hand, they shouldn't have the right to change the Word of GOD, just because they feel like it.



It has nothing to do with changing the word of God.  Everybody doesn't believe everything in the Bible is the word of God just because somebody says it is.  And nobody is arguing about religion anyway, were talking about laws. 

Hey to a llot of people you're a sinner because you say you have no problem with two men getting married. If it's an abomination against your God to have two men get married and yet you say you are okay with it, then you are a blasphemer and a sinner! 

There, you have just been hoisted by your own pitard.

This as you can see is clearly not taken from the do whatever, whenever you want approach of a liberal.



That's the most obnoxiously ridiculous, simplistic, wrong-headed reduction of liberalism I've ever read.

BUT on the same hand, they shouldn't have the right to change the Word of GOD, just because they feel like it.


No one is talking about changing the Bible, just the law. And besides, the concept of marriage is not strictly Biblical. Monogamous human pair-bonding was an institution in every culture long before your particular god was invented.

BUT on the same hand, they shouldn't have the right to change the Word of GOD, just because they feel like it.

But... and this is in my own opinion of course, unless someone can PROVE to me that the Bible was written by God Godself or from words that directly came out of God's own "mouth", then I will not fully believe that it was the "word of God". I could argue about my feelings about the Bible and it's inaccuracies all day long... that is not the point here though. I just have a hard time believing that ANY God, Christian or otherwise, would ever condemn ANYONE for being in love.

I don't know whether all the outrage about people "shoving their values/beliefs/morality down our throats" is naïve  or cynical.  How can we talk about the unfairness of people imposing their morality on us, when we all do it all the time? 

"Everyone should have the right to affordable basic health care."  Is that not a moral judgement?  "Poor children should be given the same access to a good basic public education as rich ones"  What is that but a moral judgment?  Employers should not be permitted to discriminate in hiring or promotion decision based on an applicant's age, race, gender, sexual orientation or physical disability"  Hello – there's that pesky morality again.

As for the idea that a proposed public morality is offensive when it's tainted by a religious orientation, well... I wonder what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King would have to say about that...

Look, if we don't agree with someone's particular moral viewpoint, that's our right, but please...


I beg to differ.  It is neither nieve nor cynical.  Unlike the Taliban and similar regimes, we live in a secular state that purports to uphold a seperation between church an state, which is to say rejects a state santioned religion, but upholds the right of every person to follow the religion of his/her choice.  As a state sanctioned institution, marriage should not be subjected to the interpretations or limitations of any one or combination of religious sects, but should be available to all persons willing and legally able to form such a contract.  As also a religious institution, those sects certainly should be allowed to identify which of those contracts they wish to "bless, condone, sanctify" etc, but that should have no impact on what the state, as a secular institution, recognizes.

The availability of health care and public education are more than matters of morality, although there are moral implications to both, they are matters of good public policy, and both can be defended on purely secular grounds.  Promoting a healthy population clearly conforms with several of the goals enumerated in the preamble to our Constitution, as does public education - "promote the general wefare" among others.  So one might advocate for both for moral reasons derived from one's spiritual beliefs - the good semaritan, do unto others etc. - one can also justify such efforts based on purely secular, and Constitutional arguments. 

Discrimination is also both a moral and secular issue.  If, as we say, we believe in equality and equal opportunity, (a secular set of beliefs) than we must opposes discrimination based on anything but ability.  Many colleges no longer ask, for example, the race or financial status of applicants, just their grades, test scores, and class standing, nor do they ask for photos. 

Reverand King clearly drew his insipation from his religion, as Ghandi did, and I have no problem with religious figures advocating public policy from a religious or spiritual motivation.  The point is to keep the focus on the secular greatest good for the greatest number.  If that coincides with the otherworldly view of some, fine, but when it conflicts, as in the Taliban denying women an active place in civic society, the secular, at least in our country, must trump the religious.

So its not a matter of disagreeing with the religios views of others, but of advocating for good (secular) public policy.  To return to the specifics, Gays and Lesbians have long been accused of being promiscuos (I doubt that they are any more promiscuous the heteros, but thats anoth issue) .  They want the right to marry, ie form monogomous relationships.  Well, ahu, if the frist reall is a problem. and allowing gay marrige will contribute to its solution...please...

Physical 'harm'?  No, but that's a pretty light burden.  It certainly impacts us directly as taxpayers if the goverment provides health care for the poor; if affects us as business owners if the government says you have to pay someone at least $X per hour; it restricts our freedom of choice as employers if the government tells us we can't decide against hiring someone because we have a problem with 50 year old black females. 

[

Yes, you have just reiterated the point I have made several times, which is that Liberty comes at the cost of liberty.  Meaning, for one party to gain a particular liberty, another party must give up a liberty. An employee's liberty is an employer's liberty being taken away.  An employer's liberty is an employee's liberty being taken away.

But the difference here is, that I don't see where gay marriage takes away anyone else's liberty, which is why I'm not against gay marriage.  Same goes for assisted suicide and stem cell research (as far as I know-like I said before I don't have enough scientific fact to say otherwise)


But here is another question I pose.  I don't really know my opinion on this part of the issue.  Is it OK for a gay couple (particularly a male couple) to adopt children?  Or does a child need a mother?  (Since I don't have children, I don't think I am qualified to make a stance on this, but I would like to know your opinions)

As a state sanctioned institution, marriage should not be subjected to the interpretations or limitations of any one or combination of religious sects, but should be available to all persons willing and legally able to form such a contract.  As also a religious institution, those sects certainly should be allowed to identify which of those contracts they wish to "bless, condone, sanctify" etc, but that should have no impact on what the state, as a secular institution, recognizes.



Conceptually, that makes total sense.  But as I've said before, my issue is with the premise of marriage being a 'state-sanctioned institution'.  There's no need for it.  It's archaic and patronizing.



The availability of health care and public education are more than matters of morality, although there are moral implications to both, they are matters of good public policy, and both can be defended on purely secular grounds.



For me, the issue is larger than the merits of debating issues on secular grounds vs. spiritual ones -- it's a matter of appealing to people's shared values, and exploring how policy can best reflect those values.  When I see some self-righteous demagogue stumping for or against some policy or another on religious grounds, I'm not so much offended as I am amazed at the tactical stupidity of it.  Sure, they galvanize the 'true believers', but they also alienate a lot of potential allies in the process.  The same, in fact, applies to secularists who are equally self-righteous about policy on grounds of patriotism, social justice, or whatever other principle they throw around for the purpose of saying, in effect, "fall in line without questioning, lest you be marked the enemy".

Passionate debate is healthy and productive.  But deriding each other as unChristian, or unpatriotic or ethically bankrupt is considerably less so... well, of course, there are always the extremist wackos on Internet bulletin boards who will need to be verbally slapped around just for our amusement... but I'm referring to political discussion in general, among sane people...  ::)

Peace.

And see this is where things get fuzzy.  I realize that homosexuality is against your religon.  But I don't think that anyone is trying to force Christianity to accept gay marriage.  People want the Government to accept it.  Religon shouldn't have any part in legislation.  I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in the Bible, and I don't think that gay marriage changes the word of God any more than I think wearing purple shoes changes the word of God.  I didn't marry my husband because I was following God's will, I married him because I am very much in love with him and wish to spend the rest of my life with him.  Don't you think that gay people want to get married for that very same reason?  They're not asking your pastor to give them that right.  They're asking their country to give it to them.



I don't doubt that like you there are many heterosexual married couples that are atheist.  I also know that there are homosexuals who are very religious and have close personal relationships with the lord.

What I'm saying is I don't approve of a marriage between heterosexual atheist nor homosexuals that uses a priest and/or Bible in their marriage. The Bible is the word of God, and if they want to be married they should use another form of marriage, regardless of whether it exist or not.

This sounds like an argument about semantics, not religion. I looked up the dictionary definition of "marriage", and it was defined as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". If that's also the legal definition, then all that needs to be done in change the definition to "the legal union between two people as a married couple".

By the way, there's nothing in the dictionary definition of marriage that states that a marriage has to be recognised by a church, only by the state. Unless the church makes the state law, then there should be no problem with the state recognising a marriage even if the church doesn't.

As for changing the word of God, that's a whole argument for some other thread, especially in light of the Creationist movement recently stating that the King James Bible isn't the real Bible.


As far as the King James Bible not being the real Bible, you have to take a stand somewhere and believe in something, or lack in anything based on something. And everyone and there dog can argue the whole, "nothings true and nothings right" argument till they're blue in the face.

I'll stand firm. I have gay friends, I have a lesbian couple that I know is married.  I look at them as two people that love eachother and I think that's great, however as I respect them as a couple, they also respect how I don't look at them as a married by the word of God.

I don't doubt that like you there are many heterosexual married couples that are atheist.  I also know that there are homosexuals who are very religious and have close personal relationships with the lord.

What I'm saying is I don't approve of a marriage between heterosexual atheist nor homosexuals that uses a priest and/or Bible in their marriage. The Bible is the word of God, and if they want to be married they should use another form of marriage, regardless of whether it exist or not.


Oh, this is rich.  So now if you're not Christian and/or don't believe the Bible sprang forth from the mouth of God himself, you're an atheist.

As for changing the word of God, that's a whole argument for some other thread, especially in light of the Creationist movement recently stating that the King James Bible isn't the real Bible.

And Michaelangelo was a pornographer.  By the way, Jesus was a white Aryan, and Hebrew was the language of the original white Aryan Christians, until the Jews stole it, and stole Jesus from the pure white race.  I mean, people make up all kinds of stuff to satisfy the sick needs of their demented souls!
;)

How many of those Creationist clowns read Latin or Greek...or Hebrew or Aramaic?

Oh, this is rich.  So now if you're not Christian and/or don't believe the Bible sprang forth from the mouth of God himself, you're an atheist.


Might as well Come right out and say it, if your gay or atheist you SHOULD NOT use the Bible when getting married, NOR be married by a priest.

Might as well Come right out and say it, if your gay or atheist you SHOULD NOT use the Bible when getting married, NOR be married by a priest.





Why the hell not? Who cares? Is it any of your business if someone does?

Why the hell not? Who cares? Is it any of your business if someone does?


A it's wrong

B I care

C My business, good question. My duty, you darn right.

Might as well Come right out and say it, if your gay or atheist you SHOULD NOT use the Bible when getting married, NOR be married by a priest.





Yeah...I'm fairly certain that isn't going to be a huge problem...

A. Athiests don't believe in the Bible.  Using one in their wedding would be asinine.

B. Gay people can't get married.

But you can let yourself think that it's because you said they can't.

Yeah...I'm fairly certain that isn't going to be a huge problem...

A. Athiests don't believe in the Bible.  Using one in their wedding would be asinine.

B. Gay people can't get married.

But you can let yourself think that it's because you said they can't.


I don't think that, and I don't let myself do anything.

I'm not a do whatever, whenever, however, I want to....aka liberal.

Might as well Come right out and say it, if your gay or atheist you SHOULD NOT use the Bible when getting married, NOR be married by a priest.



Yeah well, I guess we'll just leave that up to the couple and the person officiating to work out the details... but thanks for the advice, Martha Stewart.

And Michaelangelo was a pornographer.  By the way, Jesus was a white Aryan, and Hebrew was the language of the original white Aryan Christians, until the Jews stole it, and stole Jesus from the pure white race.  I mean, people make up all kinds of stuff to satisfy the sick needs of their demented souls!
;)

How many of those Creationist clowns read Latin or Greek...or Hebrew or Aramaic?



I wonder how many people believe that stuff.....  ::)

Yeah well, I guess we'll just leave that up to the couple and the person officiating to work out the details... but thanks for the advice, Martha Stewart.


if the details end up making this world go to hell, the world I live in and don't want to see go to hell, then no I might not be able to stop them, but yes I'll use my first amendment to let them know what they're doing is wrong.

if the details end up making this world go to hell, the world I live in and don't want to see go to hell, then no I might not be able to stop them, but yes I'll use my first amendment to let them know what they're doing is wrong.


I've never really been into the bible. But I thought it was individuals that went to hell for their actions. I didn't know that the actions of some meant that the whole "world" would be condemned as well  ???

If you're so afraid of going to hell. Than just focus on yourself. No need to remind everyone that according to your beliefs, their actions are going to send them to hell. But thanks again for being so concerned with my afterlife :)

I've never really been into the bible. But I thought it was individuals that went to hell for their actions. I didn't know that the actions of some meant that the whole "world" would be condemned as well  ???

If you're so afraid of going to hell. Than just focus on yourself. No need to remind everyone that according to your beliefs, their actions are going to send them to hell. But thanks again for being so concerned with my afterlife :)


For the second time I'm not a liberal.  I care about other people, and I don't want too see the rest of the world be a hell for the future of mankind.  If I can help life become better for those to surpass me, I will.

There's more to life than me, if that ain't a non-liberal saying I don't know what is.

There's more to life than me, if that ain't a non-liberal saying I don't know what is.


Yeah, you're right. How "liberal" and uncaring I am for wanting two people who love each other to be recognized by the government as a couple ::)

I'm not a do whatever, whenever, however, I want to....aka liberal.


And I'm someone who needs rules to guide me because I'm not wise enough to make my own choices when it comes to morality, or anything else because basically, on the inside, I'm a bad person who is incapable of living a good life without rich people telling me what's right and what's wrong.... a.k.a. a Neo-Conservative

And I'm someone who needs rules to guide me because I'm not wise enough to make my own choices when it comes to morality, or anything else because basically, on the inside, I'm a bad person who is incapable of living a good life without rich people telling me what's right and what's wrong.... a.k.a. a Neo-Conservative


Yes, you like me, and everyone else  are someone that needs rules and guides to know what is right and what is wrong.  To know when a decision is to be made, what is moral and what is wrong.  Now if your a bad person, it's based on the choices you make and the consequences of your actions. You may want to live in a world where there is no good or evil, therefore you can do as you please, but you don't.

And 2ndly I'm not rich, not anywhere near.

Yes, you like me, and everyone else  are someone that needs rules and guides to know what is right and what is wrong.  To know when a decision is to be made, what is moral and what is wrong.  Now if your a bad person, it's based on the choices you make and the consequences of your actions. You may want to live in a world where there is no good or evil, therefore you can do as you please, but you don't.

And 2ndly I'm not rich, not anywhere near.

I always love the way the religious right goes on about how we liberals are all about "moral relativism."  I say d*mn right we are!  What the Right wants is moral absolutism...the leaders of the fundamentalist churches and their politician friends holding the key to this absolute.  Of course, being keymasters, they are exempt from obeying the commandments they giveth unto us.  You know, Pat Robertson can be greedy for Liberian diamonds and William Bennett can gamble his azz off in Vegas, but don't you dare buy a rubber!

if the details end up making this world go to hell, the world I live in and don't want to see go to hell, then no I might not be able to stop them, but yes I'll use my first amendment to let them know what they're doing is wrong.


Well, we're certainly all free to use our first amendment rights to preach that the sky is purple if we want, but no good will come of it...  we should just be clear that we're doing it to satisfy our own egos, not to save society/humankind/the world.  ;)

I always love the way the religious right goes on about how we liberals are all about "moral relativism."  I say d*mn right we are!  What the Right wants is moral absolutism...the leaders of the fundamentalist churches and their politician friends holding the key to this absolute.  Of course, being keymasters, they are exempt from obeying the commandments they giveth unto us.  You know, Pat Robertson can be greedy for Liberian diamonds and William Bennett can gamble his azz off in Vegas, but don't you dare buy a rubber!


I don't condone either Roberston nor Bennett.

What makes me sick of you liberals is that you hear us say that we want the world to be pure and good, and the second we do one thing wrong, you want to blow that up and somehow act like it's concievable not to sin.  A republican drops his cigarate on the grass and makes a burn mark less than an inch long in the ground, a liberal wants to take a barrel full of gasoline, tie it to a helecopter and light the whole dam woods on fire.

Well, we're certainly all free to use our first amendment rights to preach that the sky is purple if we want, but no good will come of it...  we should just be clear that we're doing it to satisfy our own egos, not to save society/humankind/the world.  ;)


Why not save society or humankind? Or the world?  I'm called upon to help my fellow man and make this world a better place, I don't sit around when I'm called on.

What makes me sick of you liberals is that you hear us say that we want the world to be pure and good, 


Oh would you get over yourself for just a minute ;D

You want to deny basic rights to homosexuals, how exactly is that making the world "pure and good?"

Oh would you get over yourself for just a minute ;D

You want to deny basic rights to homosexuals, how exactly is that making the world "pure and good?"




Would you care to explain to me how going against the word of God, and telling the spirit that you are above him is right?

Could you please explain to me why you think you are above God?

2ndly I'm not denying they're basic rights to be married.  I'm denying their right to go against the word of God and be married by a bible.

Would you care to explain to me how going against the word of God, and telling the spirit that you are above him is right?

Could you please explain to me why you think you are above God?


To tell you the truth I really don't recall ever saying I was better than God. And since I don't actually believe in the existence of god, that would be like saying i'm above leprecauns ;)


And remember, NO ONE IS FORCING THE CHURCH TO MARRY ANYONE They have all the right to refuse to marry gays if they like. So I really don't see your point.

And remember, NO ONE IS FORCING THE CHURCH TO MARRY ANYONE They have all the right to refuse to marry gays if they like. So I really don't see your point.


The only point you'll find with him is the one on top of his head. He is incapable of objectively putting himself in the shoes of someone who doesn't subscribe to his world view. He'll spend all day telling you of his many homosexual and/or athiest friends, but at the end of the day, the arrogance of the so-called "moral high ground" will be made evident in his unmistakable distaste for (and ignorance to) the left.

One question I have is, who the hell told these people that they were the moral ones? And when did the rest of us give up on letting them know that the jig is up? We know how things really are, and it's time they took off their self-manufactured, self-bestowed halos.

Harmonica haprs on and on about how mankind can't just do whatever it wants to, that it must follow a moral code... But what makes him so sure that his moral code is the one we need to follow? He can't offer any proof whatsoever. Sure, he can say the Bible is the word of god over and over until he's blue in the face, but he can't give any proof of it at all. And still he wonders why his message is rejected by and large. The reason is that he's no St. Paul. Even St. Paul wrote that in the end, all shall go to heaven. St. Paul was smart enough to see what old Hebrew laws were no longer necessary for mankind (i.e. the laws of Kashruth, the circumcision requirement, the exclusion of gentiles, etc...).

NEW YORK TIMES
July 5, 2005

United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage
By SHAILA DEWAN

ATLANTA, July 4 - The United Church of Christ became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."

The resolution was adopted in the face of efforts to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. It was both a theological statement and a protest against discrimination, said the Rev. John H. Thomas, the president and general minister of the denomination, which has 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members.

"On this July 4, the United Church of Christ has courageously acted to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages," Mr. Thomas said at a news conference after the vote by the General Synod.

The synod's decisions are not binding and the vote will not require pastors to provide marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Some United Church of Christ ministers already perform such ceremonies.

While the United Church of Christ has not had the widespread divisions other major denominations have experienced over homosexuality, some member churches had said that such a vote could prompt them to leave the denomination, and one group called for Mr. Thomas's resignation when he announced his support of the resolution.

One amendment offered on the synod floor, and accepted, added a phrase acknowledging the "pain and struggle" passage of the resolution would create.

Yet the resolution, submitted by the church's Southern California-Nevada Conference, appeared to have overwhelming support on the synod floor, where the vote was done by a show of hands among the roughly 800 delegates after about 45 minutes of debate.

"Every indication was that it was going to go that way," said Brice Thomas, 42, a United Church of Christ pastor in Lebanon, Ohio, who is gay. "But still, to hear it come to a vote and see it processed in such a positive way to me was transformative."

Some, like Harlan Hall, a delegate from Wisconsin, supported a failed effort to change the resolution to apply to "covenanted relationships" rather than legal marriage. "As a well-over-30-years-old, heterosexual white male capitalist, who seems like he's losing his position in the church - but still can vote, I am in favor of the proposal," Mr. Hall said. "I could find it much easier to sell back home."

But another delegate, Gregory Morisse, who opposed the amendment, said, "Covenanted relationships are not under constitutional threat."

Hector Lopez, a minister from a small Latino church in Southern California, said he was not at first enthusiastic about same-sex marriage. But after officiating at about a dozen such ceremonies in Oregon and seeing the respect and commitment of the couples, he said, "I experienced a passionate conversion."

Several major religious groups permit same-sex unions, but do not give them the same status as marriage, including the Episcopal Church, with about 2.3 million members; the Evangelical Lutheran Church, with 5 million; and Reform Judaism, with 1.7 million.

"Today's word is not the last word in the U.C.C. about marriage," Mr. Thomas said. "It is a crucial and groundbreaking first word in a difficult but important churchwide discussion."

He said the church strove to have "diversity without division, unity without uniformity." His hope, he said, is that "we will not run from one another, because if we run from one another we run from Christ."

There was some evidence that the denomination could comfortably encompass dissenters, in part because the mood after the vote was more conciliatory than triumphant. The Rev. Barbara Headley, pastor at a predominantly black United Church of Christ church in Hartford, said she voted against the resolution and that many blacks were more "orthodox" in their interpretation of Scripture.

"There are those of us who live in the tension of affirming love and relationships for people who have not had enough of that, and feeling like the theological evidence for it just hasn't been presented," she said.

Ms. Headley was with Beverly Deloatch, another black delegate from Connecticut, who said, "I voted for it, and I agree with everything she's saying."

Jeanette Mott Oxford, who described herself as the first openly lesbian member elected to the Missouri House of Representatives, said she was pleased by the "brave prophetic witness" of the vote, but "very concerned about my brothers and sisters who may be hurt by this."

The United Church of Christ prides itself on being in the forefront of human and civil rights issues. On its Web site, the denomination says it and its predecessors were among the first churches to take a stand against slavery, in 1700, the first to ordain a woman, in 1853, and the first to publish an inclusive-language hymnal, in 1995.

Its slogan, "God is still speaking," is meant to suggest that the Bible is not the sole source of divine instruction, and that Scripture must be interpreted in today's context.

The equal marriage rights resolution states, in part, "Ideas about marriage have shifted and changed dramatically throughout human history, and such change continues even today." It continues, "In the Gospel we find ground for a definition of marriage and family relationships based on the affirmation of the full humanity of each partner, lived out in mutual care and respect for one another."

Last year, two major networks refused to broadcast a United Church of Christ commercial that showed two bouncers standing in front of a church, allowing some people to come in and refusing others, including nonwhites and a gay couple. "Jesus didn't turn people away," the text said. "Neither do we."

To tell you the truth I really don't recall ever saying I was better than God. And since I don't actually believe in the existence of god, that would be like saying i'm above leprecauns ;)


And remember, NO ONE IS FORCING THE CHURCH TO MARRY ANYONE They have all the right to refuse to marry gays if they like. So I really don't see your point.


A bible should not be used

A bible should not be used

A Bible should not be used

Hopefully you can see one of those.

The only point you'll find with him is the one on top of his head. He is incapable of objectively putting himself in the shoes of someone who doesn't subscribe to his world view. He'll spend all day telling you of his many homosexual and/or athiest friends, but at the end of the day, the arrogance of the so-called "moral high ground" will be made evident in his unmistakable distaste for (and ignorance to) the left.

One question I have is, who the hell told these people that they were the moral ones? And when did the rest of us give up on letting them know that the jig is up? We know how things really are, and it's time they took off their self-manufactured, self-bestowed halos.

Harmonica haprs on and on about how mankind can't just do whatever it wants to, that it must follow a moral code... But what makes him so sure that his moral code is the one we need to follow? He can't offer any proof whatsoever. Sure, he can say the Bible is the word of god over and over until he's blue in the face, but he can't give any proof of it at all. And still he wonders why his message is rejected by and large. The reason is that he's no St. Paul. Even St. Paul wrote that in the end, all shall go to heaven. St. Paul was smart enough to see what old Hebrew laws were no longer necessary for mankind (i.e. the laws of Kashruth, the circumcision requirement, the exclusion of gentiles, etc...).


I'll do you a favor McDonald if we ever meet in real life, I'll convert to your beliefs, and I'll kick the s h i t right out of you.

So, what you are saying is that if they want to go to a courthouse and be married, you'd support it?  I know many people who are married, but not by a bible.  In fact, there was NO MENTION of God or religion or anything of the sort in my brother & SIL's marriage.  I don't think anyone is saying "Since I'm Catholic, and gay, the Catholic Church MUST marry me and recognize the marriage".  Sure, it would be nice, but it's a pipe dream.......


Yes I am saying that if they went to the courthouse to be married, as long as it wasn't be a bible, I'd support it.  I believe what sil and bro did, was what should be done, I condone it.

I am wondering what all this sniping back and forth is about.  When people are married, first they get a
marriage license.  That makes them legally married by the government.  After that they are free to have, or not have a ceremony in a church, or jumping out of an airplane, or what ever they want to do, but that is basically fluff.  There have been cases of people going to the church and going through the whole ceremony thinking that they were married, and they were in the eyes of the church, but not legally and what a mess that created. The person performing the wedding was remiss in not asking to see the license.  All legal marriages are performed at the city hall, weddings are ceremonies for friends and family to state a commitment before them, or as an excuse to throw a party.  It is possible to have a marriage without a wedding, but if you have a wedding without a marriage,well you are not married at all.

A bible should not be used

A bible should not be used

A Bible should not be used

Hopefully you can see one of those.


Your illogical.  You say that anything that is against God is wrong, then you say two men getting married is against God, but you say you're ok with it.  That hypocracy.

I am wondering what all this sniping back and forth is about.  When people are married, first they get a
marriage license.  That makes them legally married by the government.  After that they are free to have, or not have a ceremony in a church, or jumping out of an airplane, or what ever they want to do, but that is basically fluff.  There have been cases of people going to the church and going through the whole ceremony thinking that they were married, and they were in the eyes of the church, but not legally and what a mess that created. The person performing the wedding was remiss in not asking to see the license.  All legal marriages are performed at the city hall, weddings are ceremonies for friends and family to state a commitment before them, or as an excuse to throw a party.  It is possible to have a marriage without a wedding, but if you have a wedding without a marriage,well you are not married at all.


Precisely. Thank you Danoota. A marriage is a legal union recognised by the state. It has nothing to do with Church law. Again, we are confusing marriage as a legal term with the Holy Matrimony recognised by the Church. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. As Danoota has just pointed out, no one actually gets married in a church. That's just a place where the wedding ceremony is consecrated. The real argument we should be having here is whether or not the Church should allow gay weddings. If it's against the laws of the Church, then no, they shouldn't. But a gay marriage shouldn't be against the law of the State.

Stop arguing about semantics.

Yes I am saying that if they went to the courthouse to be married, as long as it wasn't be a bible, I'd support it.  I believe what sil and bro did, was what should be done, I condone it.


Than why in the hell have you been arguing about it so much :o

I'm convinced. This has been nothig but an act on your part. It has to be. It is impossible that anyone could be so illogical :-\\

I'll do you a favor McDonald if we ever meet in real life, I'll convert to your beliefs, and I'll kick the s h i t right out of you.




Tsk tsk tsk...Harmonica, that wasn't a very Christ like thing to say... 

The only point you'll find with him is the one on top of his head. He is incapable of objectively putting himself in the shoes of someone who doesn't subscribe to his world view. He'll spend all day telling you of his many homosexual and/or athiest friends, but at the end of the day, the arrogance of the so-called "moral high ground" will be made evident in his unmistakable distaste for (and ignorance to) the left.

One question I have is, who the hell told these people that they were the moral ones? And when did the rest of us give up on letting them know that the jig is up? We know how things really are, and it's time they took off their self-manufactured, self-bestowed halos.

Harmonica haprs on and on about how mankind can't just do whatever it wants to, that it must follow a moral code... But what makes him so sure that his moral code is the one we need to follow? He can't offer any proof whatsoever. Sure, he can say the Bible is the word of god over and over until he's blue in the face, but he can't give any proof of it at all. And still he wonders why his message is rejected by and large. The reason is that he's no St. Paul. Even St. Paul wrote that in the end, all shall go to heaven. St. Paul was smart enough to see what old Hebrew laws were no longer necessary for mankind (i.e. the laws of Kashruth, the circumcision requirement, the exclusion of gentiles, etc...).

That's what I meant about the evangelicals going on about "moral relativism."  What it comes down to is they're superior to the rest of us and we should all do what they say the Bible says...or we can all burn in hell.
I'm just wondering how Harmonica managed to nail his other hand to that cross!

The real argument we should be having here is whether or not the Church should allow gay weddings. If it's against the laws of the Church, then no, they shouldn't. But a gay marriage shouldn't be against the law of the State.

Stop arguing about semantics.


Its not semantics.  Debating if the church should allow gay weddings is not less valid than debating if the state should allow gay marriage.  They are different, but they are both legit.  If you don't belong to a particular church, I don't know why you would care, but oviosly, some people do belong to them.

Part of the argument is semantics, and part of that argument is being propagated by those who equate marriage with a religious ceremony. It isn't. The opponents of gay marriage oppose it because of religious issues, but marriage in itself has nothing to do with religion. If it did, then only religious people would be allowed to get married