Rational discussion on Gay Marriage

As a biologist that focused on biochemisty and genetics this has always been an interesting topic to me. Why would you "choose" to be something that is not the normal cultural accecptance and ridule critcism. It is not an easy "row to hoe". I have gay friends and I know the struggles that they go though. I have also asked them why they are gay and there answer has always been that they have been attracted to the same sex as long as they can remember having attractions to other people.

There are many different factors that can influence a person's sexual nature, including hormones during in utero. I don't know 1st hand, just from the people that are my friends and that are gay. Is it a crime against nature, not the law of God...it is not for me to judge them. However, I do put myself in their shoes and wonder how it would feel if it was my loved one that were in the hospital and I could not go visit them or have a say in their medical care because I was not considered their spouse.

If I were in their shoes I would go get a power of attorney that gave me those same rights as if I were married to them. Regardless of the sexual orientation the power of attorney should hold in a court of law.

As far as insurance goes. Many companies do offer same sex beneftits. My company does, but I know that it is far and few between. Don't know what to advise on this one except work for a company that honors same sex benefits.

 

Gay-rights proponents are trying so hard to turn this into a "civil-rights" issue, but it's anything but.

This issue is not about the rights or lack thereof, of gay people - or of any people. It's about whether or not a minority of citizens will be allowed to change the definition of an institution that has existed in our society in Federal and state constitutions for many, many years.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not open to "redefinition" or "re-negotiation", anymore than water is open to being redefined as something solid rather than liquid. Marriage is what it is.

Gays in most areas of the US can get a civil union. That gives them the same partner rights as married men and women receive.

If it was only about "rights", then gays would shut up about it and move on, because they've been given those "equal" rights.

But they don't...because to them, it's not about being treated equally. It's about them attempting to force others by law or court order, to accept what they think marriage should be....rather than what it is and always has been.

 

</p>That uninformed opinion might explain some of the problem. As of today only 11 states will even "recognize" a Civil Union.

 

As other posters have pointed out, we use the word "marriage" to mean two entirely different things. Churches are certainly entitled to choose which unions they will bless, and which they will not, and the government has no right to intrude on that. Civil marriages, on the other hand, should not be subject to the beliefs of an organized religion. If two people qualify under state law - both have reached the age of majority, and neither is currently married to anyone else - they should be able to get a marriage certificate and go to a civil official, such as a judge or justice of the peace, and get married.

Civil unions confer some, but not all, of the benefits of marriage. Legal documents can be drawn up to provide some of the protections of marriage to an unmarried couple. Powers of attorney and health care powers of attorney; wills; contracts regarding property ownership. But what to do about health care? Social Security benefits? Taxes? The list goes on.

Perhaps we should have different terms to apply to religious vs. civil marriages, I wonder if that would help some people get past their resistance to same sex marriage. I just don't know. But I do believe civil marriage is a civil right.

 

That really reminds of the history behind the Civil Rights Movement, when a citizen was defined as a white male over the age of 21. That definition had been in place for a very long time too. Now, it includes women and men of color and is considered normal, but it was a radical idea at the time. It is odd how things really never seem to change where change is concerned.

 

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm

Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships
Last Update: May, 2008

Quick facts on key states:

Issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, California*

Recognizes same-sex marriages from other states: Rhode Island

Allows civil unions, providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples: Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire

Statewide law provides nearly all state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (Domestic Partnerships): California, Oregon

Statewide law provides some state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (Domestic Partnerships): Hawaii, Maine, District of Columbia, Washington

* The Calfornia Supreme Court ruled on May 15, 2008 that same sex couples have the right to marry in California. This decision could be made moot if a ballot initiative to define marriage between one man and one woman passes in November, 2008.

 

Not all religious bodies refuse to acknowledge marriage between same sex partners. The Unitarian-Universalist Church recognizes same sex marriage, as do ministries within the Universal Life Church. Within the ULC, the determination is made by each clergyman as to whether or not he or she will perform same sex marriages.

And, at its basic level, do not the teachings of all religious institutions boil down to this? "That which is harmful to thee, do to no one else."

 

Should churches get out of legalizing marriages? Let the government recognize civil unions for all...let the churches recognized religious marriages. If we..as a country..legalize marriages for all....can't churches at some point in the future be "forced" to perform marriages for all couples....or risk losing their tax-exempt status with the IRS?

 

As I said on the other side, churches are already free to use their discretion about which marriages to bless, and that would not change if the government decided to recognize same sex marriage. I think it is just a matter of convenience that ordained ministers are authorized to legalize marriage at the same time they are performing the religious ceremony; otherwise, couples wanting a religious service would have to have two marriage ceremonies - one religious and one civil.

 

good grief

 

That's all well and good to say today, but what about the future? Didn't the government force Bob Jones University's hand by threatening their tax status if they didn't change the policy on inter-racial dating? Let the government legalize civil unions for all...and get the church out of legalizing anything...make marriage a religious ceremony only.

 

Something else to think about?

All of us heterosexuals who have participated in oral sex, by giving or receiving, have indulged in some of the same sexual practices as homosexuals. They are just doing it with persons of the same sex. Is that the rub? Same sex? That is the only difference that I see.

I still think that the "church" should stay out of it! Jesus didn't say a whole lot about marriage; he spoke more about adultery and divorce. There is more of that going on than homosexuality. Early Judaic religion tolerated men with multiple wives. Christianity has come along way to just one wife; and sometimes one wife is hard to tolerate. Why can't Christianity just tolerate two people in a loving relationship?

Thomas Jefferson, who I think was one of our wisest Presidents, said it best. And I paraphrase; "I like the idea of a God, but I have a fear of religion".

 

Not exactly, I believe their status was revoked in the 1970s for their discriminatory policies.

 

All you gay loving marriage freaks. Where does this end? If you allow gay marriages, you will need to allow other freaks to marry. Newlifetaxidermy made an excellent point and all you gay marriage supporters totally ignored the question. I know why you avoided it, because gays fall in the same boat.
"If we allow people to marry someone of the same sex, why shouldn't we allow polygamists to marry multiple husbands/wives? Why should we not allow cousins/brothers/sisters/moms/sons/dads/daughters etc to marry each other? Why not allow adults to marry children? How about those that are into beastiality? Should we deny a man the right to marry his favorite sheep? That all sounds ridiculous and so does allowing a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman. If you like engaging in deviant sexual behavior, then by all means go ahead, but do not try and force society to accept and embrace your lifestyle. Homosexuality is a perversion and everyone knows it, even homosexuals..."

 

Slippery slope is one of the most common logical fallacies around here, so much so that some of us don't even bother responding to it.

 

But in the 80s BJU paid back over $500,000 to the IRS rather than reversed their policy on inter-racial dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States:

"The case has been cited in many decisions that followed as well as by commentators, due to the significance of the precedent established in this case. A recent discussion in NRB Magazine pointed to the case as potential grounds for removing tax exempt status from Christian broadcasters who do not support gay rights."

 

Actually I think we're more gay marriage loving freaks.

When all people have the same rights.

My God, if you allow whites and blacks to marry, what's next? Whites and Injuns? Whites and Jews? Let's not go down that slippery slope!

No, he didn't, which is why we all ignored it.

George Carlin made an excellent point. According to his words:
They say pot is a gateway drug which leads to harder drugs. In reality, it's mother's milk that leads to everything!

What would you stop for fear that it leads to something else? You think gay marriange would lead to beastial marriage? Well, what leads to gay marriage? By golly, heterosexual marriage leads to gay marriage! By your logic, we should ban heterosexuals from marrying!

 

DH always tries this argument with me. I argue that gay marriage is still a union b/t 2 of the same species. That is why it is different in my mind that bestiality or polygamy.

 

Yes, to me they are the same. Any man that looks at another man's hairy stanky a** and gets excited is no different than a man doing the same about a sheep.

 

Then what about a man or woman that whats to marry a child that they are attracted to, where do we stop and say this is not acceptable behavior?