Gay Marriages

I'm doing a paper on Gay Marriages. Whats your view point on this issue and why? Are you for it or against it.

Thanks in advance

I support gay marriage if both chicks are hot.

I'm for it mainly because I don't believe in putting too many restrictions on how a person can live their life. Our culture looks very favorably on marriage so why not let everyone have that? Being married means many things, joint taxes, benefits, and a stable environment if children are involved are just a few. It's important to be able to have those things that are beyond just the gesture of giving of oneself. For heterosexuals marriage is the ultimate commitment and gay/lesbian couples should be able to express the same level of devotion.

for. why not? if it makes people happy? it doesn't hurt me )

[quote82bc78f8ca="tracemhunter"]I support gay marriage if both chicks are hot.[/quote82bc78f8ca]

hahaha that is quite possibly the funniest thing ive heard today, god i love the intrawebs!

I don't see why people would be against it. How does two people in love getting married hurt them?

[quote84ec618470="condra"]for. why not? if it makes people happy? it doesn't hurt me )[/quote84ec618470]

...and it doesn't hurt others.

Yes, I support it. I just see no reason not to...people all deserve the same rights and I think that extends to marriage. If you love and want to share your life with someone, you should be able to, regardless of sexual preference.

I have no problem with gay marriage...my ONLY issue is "the good buddy" marriage that will inevitably follow once the stigma of same sex marriage has faded and has become as normal and unoffending to society at large as divorce is now.

I am for it. If heterosexuals can get married, why can't gay people. I think it is wrong that they are not allowed to be married. And I believe the reason for them not being allowed to marry is because of the tax purposes. If gays were allowed to marry, the income from taxes would drop a lot.

Also I never thought of it until now booklover mentioned it. But what would stop two friends that never wanted to get married in the first place from getting married for tax/benefit purposes?

No problem here, let people do what they want

Thanks guys for the responses

[quote68a96568a1="stueybaby17"]I am for it. If heterosexuals can get married, why can't gay people. I think it is wrong that they are not allowed to be married. And I believe the reason for them not being allowed to marry is because of the tax purposes. If gays were allowed to marry, the income from taxes would drop a lot.

Also I never thought of it until now booklover mentioned it. But what would stop two friends that never wanted to get married in the first place from getting married for tax/benefit purposes?[/quote68a96568a1]

Yea I agree but what would stop two straight friends, (a guy and a girl). I think gay people deserve the benefit of the doubt if straight people do.

I'm all for it - more power to em! )

Not so much, but I'm not even going to jump into this one really.

No problem here. I know some people are caught up on the term "marriage," typically for religious reasons, and from what I've read the gay community wants all the legal benefits of being married but most aren't all that caught up in using the term "marriage." So I've always been of the mind to say, fine, don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union, give them identical legal rights and benefits as married couples have, and be done with it. Then you've made the most people possible happy.

But personally, call it marriage for all I care.

[quote3b4d2aa00f="dmorris68"]No problem here. I know some people are caught up on the term "marriage," typically for religious reasons, and from what I've read the gay community wants all the legal benefits of being married but most aren't all that caught up in using the term "marriage." So I've always been of the mind to say, fine, don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union, give them identical legal rights and benefits as married couples have, and be done with it. Then you've made the most people possible happy.

But personally, call it marriage for all I care.[/quote3b4d2aa00f]

Well if Dmorris says its okay, it must be.

hehe )

So shall it be written, so shall it be done!

Hey...This is my old thread that got locked.
If you want my paper, you can have it just PM me...but I didn't do THAT well.
I got an 88 (It's a high school level paper).

Here's the link
http//forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=54067&highlight=gay+rights

Edit
A pro viewpoint- People should be allowed to live their life the way they want to.

A con viewpoint- Gay people already have the right to marry...What they are asking for is simply an ADDITIONAL right. Denying them the right to marry is not unconstitutional because technically homosexuals and heterosexuals both have the right to marry...so they are equal.

Thanks...sure pm it too me...I'll look it over and check out your points, properly quoting you.

[quotef2a6bc9640="junkie06"]Thanks...sure pm it too me...I'll look it over and check out your points, properly quoting you.[/quotef2a6bc9640]
Ok.
However I probably won't be able to send it till tomorrow because I'm not home.

ah thats okay then...im pretty much done with it and its due midnight 2nite

Oh...lemme see if i have it in my email then.
What's your viewpoint for it btw?
And what level is it?

Pm me your email...I'll forward it to you, it's in my sent folder.

Oh and if anyone that is against the idea, and doesnt want to post it here. Feel free to PM me instead, with your response.

I don't really have a problem with it as long as I don't have to put up with two dudes making out in public.

[quoteafe95776d3="hairyferry"]I don't really have a problem with it as long as I don't have to put up with two dudes making out in public.[/quoteafe95776d3]

Easy fix, don't look )

[quotea07442a2f5="aviendha47"][quotea07442a2f5="hairyferry"]I don't really have a problem with it as long as I don't have to put up with two dudes making out in public.[/quotea07442a2f5]

Easy fix, don't look )[/quotea07442a2f5]

LOL, I love you.

And IAWTC.

[quoted5d3e57f0b="hairyferry"]I don't really have a problem with it as long as I don't have to put up with two dudes making out in public.[/quoted5d3e57f0b]

I agree, but I also don't like watching straight couples make out in public. But hot blonde lesbians.. go for it girls!

IAWTC

Great points - I would agree with all of the fors. And I would say - I would not enjoy watching any couple making out in public, get a room please.

my hot blonde girlfriend makes out with her hot blonde best friend...does that make them lesbians?

yes

No, try bisexual or just "experimenting"

should I get mad about it?

That depends on if you consider it cheating or not. A lot of guys would like a girlfriend like that but if you're in a committed relationship that doesn't allow for extra-curricular activities so to say, then yeah.

[quoteb932539943="aviendha47"]That depends on if you consider it cheating or not. A lot of guys would like a girlfriend like that but if you're in a committed relationship that doesn't allow for extra-curricular activities so to say, then yeah.[/quoteb932539943]

haha no its all in good fun. They are like best friends and its actually pretty cool. To me its not cheating beacuse its not like she is like "oh im not going to make out with zach tonight, jsut sharon."

haha i thik its kinda funny although I do yell at her sometimes cause it is kinda annoying.

oh and a little disclaimer, she only does it when she is wasteddd out of her mind.

[quote94766650fc="darklight"][quote94766650fc="stueybaby17"]I am for it. If heterosexuals can get married, why can't gay people. I think it is wrong that they are not allowed to be married. And I believe the reason for them not being allowed to marry is because of the tax purposes. If gays were allowed to marry, the income from taxes would drop a lot.

Also I never thought of it until now booklover mentioned it. But what would stop two friends that never wanted to get married in the first place from getting married for tax/benefit purposes?[/quote94766650fc]

Yea I agree but what would stop two straight friends, (a guy and a girl). I think gay people deserve the benefit of the doubt if straight people do.[/quote94766650fc]

Good point. . . I'll take that back.

[quoted08e638a71="darklight"][quoted08e638a71="stueybaby17"]I am for it. If heterosexuals can get married, why can't gay people. I think it is wrong that they are not allowed to be married. And I believe the reason for them not being allowed to marry is because of the tax purposes. If gays were allowed to marry, the income from taxes would drop a lot.

Also I never thought of it until now booklover mentioned it. But what would stop two friends that never wanted to get married in the first place from getting married for tax/benefit purposes?[/quoted08e638a71]

Yea I agree but what would stop two straight friends, (a guy and a girl). I think gay people deserve the benefit of the doubt if straight people do.[/quoted08e638a71]

(I realize your paper is done, but I just found this thread.....and couldn't resist weighing in).

Straight people already get married for these sorts of reasons (stated above) all the time. Financial benefits / medical benefits / citizenship benefits.......whether intentional or not, hets can take advantage of these inherent privileges merely because their respective gender.

It's appalling to me that in this day and age one certain group of people feels that they are 'superior' enough to oppress another. Gay marriage should absolutely be a legally recognized commitment.

Surprisingly, there are a number of large corporations that now
allow for 'Life Partner' benefits, which is a move in the right direction.

Anyway.........I'm in support. LOL

P

[quote93bcf0f076="zr2152"]my hot blonde girlfriend makes out with her hot blonde best friend...does that make them lesbians?[/quote93bcf0f076]
I'm thinking it just makes them drunk


wink

I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I am a Christian. I don't support gay marriage becouse of my biblical beliefs. But on the other hand I am a true Conservative, (not simply a social Con like many today) I believe in very limited government. I am strongly states right and anti-federalism. So politically I am against the government telling people what to do aslong as there not infringing on other people(s) civil liberties.

I guess I am against churches marrying homosexual couples. I would okay with the government offering civil unions. But but the act of marrage I think should be left to the church and stay between a man and a women. But I think there should some sort of alternative for gay couples so they can get the government benifits.

[quoteeaffc2c1f0="zr2152"][quoteeaffc2c1f0="aviendha47"]That depends on if you consider it cheating or not. A lot of guys would like a girlfriend like that but if you're in a committed relationship that doesn't allow for extra-curricular activities so to say, then yeah.[/quoteeaffc2c1f0]

haha no its all in good fun. They are like best friends and its actually pretty cool. To me its not cheating beacuse its not like she is like "oh im not going to make out with zach tonight, jsut sharon."

haha i thik its kinda funny although I do yell at her sometimes cause it is kinda annoying.

oh and a little disclaimer, she only does it when she is wasteddd out of her mind.[/quoteeaffc2c1f0]

) yeah, a lot of girls only do it for the attention and being wasted helps.

[quotecc78b782f3="JordanE"]I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I am a Christian. I don't support gay marriage becouse of my biblical beliefs. But on the other hand I am a true Conservative, (not simply a social Con like many today) I believe in very limited government. I am strongly states right and anti-federalism. So politically I am against the government telling people what to do aslong as there not infringing on other people(s) civil liberties.

I guess I am against churches marrying homosexual couples. I would okay with the government offering civil unions. But but the act of marrage I think should be left to the church and stay between a man and a women. But I think there should some sort of alternative for gay couples so they can get the government benifits.[/quotecc78b782f3]
And what about those churches that want to perform gay marriage?

[quote52415c3227="wasabe"][quote52415c3227="JordanE"]I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I am a Christian. I don't support gay marriage becouse of my biblical beliefs. But on the other hand I am a true Conservative, (not simply a social Con like many today) I believe in very limited government. I am strongly states right and anti-federalism. So politically I am against the government telling people what to do aslong as there not infringing on other people(s) civil liberties.

I guess I am against churches marrying homosexual couples. I would okay with the government offering civil unions. But but the act of marrage I think should be left to the church and stay between a man and a women. But I think there should some sort of alternative for gay couples so they can get the government benifits.[/quote52415c3227]
And what about those churches that want to perform gay marriage?[/quote52415c3227]


Well with the separation of church and state, if gay marriage is legal in there state there isn't really anyway to stop them. However in the christian faith marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a women. The act of homosexuality is also forbidding within the christian faith.

Its pretty hard to take a church seriously when they are attempting to preform acts that clearly contradict the teachings on which there faith has been founded upon.

[quote339df4e1d2="JordanE"][quote339df4e1d2="wasabe"][quote339df4e1d2="JordanE"]I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I am a Christian. I don't support gay marriage becouse of my biblical beliefs. But on the other hand I am a true Conservative, (not simply a social Con like many today) I believe in very limited government. I am strongly states right and anti-federalism. So politically I am against the government telling people what to do aslong as there not infringing on other people(s) civil liberties.

I guess I am against churches marrying homosexual couples. I would okay with the government offering civil unions. But but the act of marrage I think should be left to the church and stay between a man and a women. But I think there should some sort of alternative for gay couples so they can get the government benifits.[/quote339df4e1d2]
And what about those churches that want to perform gay marriage?[/quote339df4e1d2]


Well with the separation of church and state, if gay marriage is legal in there state there isn't really anyway to stop them. However in the christian faith marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a women. The act of homosexuality is also forbidding within the christian faith.

Its pretty hard to take a church seriously when they are attempting to preform acts that clearly contradict the teachings on which there faith has been founded upon.[/quote339df4e1d2]

The church does not have a problem with homosexuality at all. It is the sex part that the church has a problem with. The church believes that two men or woman can love eachother and be together as long as there is no sex involved, because sex is supposed to be for a man and a woman to procreate. Two men or two women cannot produce a child and that is what the church looks down on.

But at the same time the church considers it a sin to use almost any type of birth control (allowed methods are abstinance or the basil body method or similar method of timing). So if you have ever used a condom, had a gf or wife on the pill it is just as bad as the act of gay sex.

I mean you are right about the church not being in favor of gay marriage, but the church has no problem with gay people.

[quotebe70b97a9f="JordanE"][quotebe70b97a9f="wasabe"][quotebe70b97a9f="JordanE"]I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I am a Christian. I don't support gay marriage becouse of my biblical beliefs. But on the other hand I am a true Conservative, (not simply a social Con like many today) I believe in very limited government. I am strongly states right and anti-federalism. So politically I am against the government telling people what to do aslong as there not infringing on other people(s) civil liberties.

I guess I am against churches marrying homosexual couples. I would okay with the government offering civil unions. But but the act of marrage I think should be left to the church and stay between a man and a women. But I think there should some sort of alternative for gay couples so they can get the government benifits.[/quotebe70b97a9f]
And what about those churches that want to perform gay marriage?[/quotebe70b97a9f]


Well with the separation of church and state, if gay marriage is legal in there state there isn't really anyway to stop them. However in the christian faith marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a women. The act of homosexuality is also forbidding within the christian faith.

Its pretty hard to take a church seriously when they are attempting to preform acts that clearly contradict the teachings on which there faith has been founded upon.[/quotebe70b97a9f]
Please name a church founded upon the premise of no gay marriage.

[quote7af38ea2c8="wasabe"][quote7af38ea2c8="JordanE"][quote7af38ea2c8="wasabe"][quote7af38ea2c8="JordanE"]I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I am a Christian. I don't support gay marriage becouse of my biblical beliefs. But on the other hand I am a true Conservative, (not simply a social Con like many today) I believe in very limited government. I am strongly states right and anti-federalism. So politically I am against the government telling people what to do aslong as there not infringing on other people(s) civil liberties.

I guess I am against churches marrying homosexual couples. I would okay with the government offering civil unions. But but the act of marrage I think should be left to the church and stay between a man and a women. But I think there should some sort of alternative for gay couples so they can get the government benifits.[/quote7af38ea2c8]
And what about those churches that want to perform gay marriage?[/quote7af38ea2c8]


Well with the separation of church and state, if gay marriage is legal in there state there isn't really anyway to stop them. However in the christian faith marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a women. The act of homosexuality is also forbidding within the christian faith.

Its pretty hard to take a church seriously when they are attempting to preform acts that clearly contradict the teachings on which there faith has been founded upon.[/quote7af38ea2c8]
Please name a church founded upon the premise of no gay marriage.[/quote7af38ea2c8]


The Christain faith in founded upon the teachings in the bible. The bible is supposed to be the "word of GOD". One of the bibles teachings is that marriage is between a man and a women.

Yup, and to view it simply, I support the Bible.

[quote45cf4da8a0="wasabe"]Please name a church founded upon the premise of no gay marriage.[/quote45cf4da8a0]
I assume you're being fecitious and taking that statement literally, because surely you don't mean to suggest that you think gay marriage is okay with mainstream Christian faith?

Only the most liberal and progressive of Christian denominations, such as the United Church of Christ, condone or embrace homosexuality in any form, let alone gay marriage. Some like Methodists and Anglicans, are becoming more open to discussion on the issue although it's still very controversial between the more liberal and conservative factions. Virtually none of your Baptist, Church of God, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Apostolic, etc. will have anything to do with homosexuality, and many go so far as to excommunicate or ban members who are "outed."

http//www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm

The problem comes from two different concepts of marriage the secular/government/legal concept, and the religious (typically Christian) concept. Christians view marriage as a sacred ceremony carried out in the name of God with His blessing. Since most Christians interpret the Bible to condemn homosexuality, the idea of gay "marriage" would be a complete contradiction to them -- in their mind God does not tolerate homosexuality, therefore there can be nothing sacred associated with it. The government isn't so spiritual or distinct about it, however you have to remember that many of our country's principles are rooted in Christian faith. Remember that the Protestant Pilgrims fled England for religious freedom, and they had a major influence over early law and the formation of this country. Christians like to make much of the fact that the founding fathers probably couldn't conceive of the concept of "gay marriage" in their time, because to them marriage meant only one thing man+woman in the eyes of God. Hence they didn't dictate it because it was implicitly understood.

And you'll never convince either side otherwise. That's why I feel like no progress will ever be made to give gays the right to enjoy the benefits of legal marriage as long as so much emphasis is based upon the sacred, religious aspect of "marriage." The word itself carries significant spiritual weight with the substantial Christian population, and we'll just never get past that.

Therefore, I've always said let Christians have marriage, let the non-Christians (gay or straight) have civil unions. Change the laws to recognize the secular union rather than the religious marriage, giving equal rights and benefits in either case, and be done with it. Compromise, everybody gets something. Of course you always have the hardliners who won't give an inch, but they fall outside the mainstream. The majority of folks would get what they want and be happy. Many gays I've heard from have flatly stated that they don't want or care if it's called "marriage," they just want identical rights & benefits of the union.

I assume you're being fecitious and taking that statement literally, because surely you don't mean to suggest that you think interracial marriage is okay with mainstream Christian faith?

Only the most liberal and progressive of Christian denominations, such as the United Church of Christ, condone or embrace miscegenation in any form, let alone interracial marriage. Some like Methodists and Anglicans, are becoming more open to discussion on the issue although it's still very controversial between the more liberal and conservative factions. Virtually none of your Baptist, Church of God, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Apostolic, etc. will have anything to do with miscegenation, and many go so far as to excommunicate or ban members who are "outed."

[quote1aa9a111ab="wasabe"]I assume you're being fecitious and taking that statement literally, because surely you don't mean to suggest that you think interracial marriage is okay with mainstream Christian faith?

Only the most liberal and progressive of Christian denominations, such as the United Church of Christ, condone or embrace miscegenation in any form, let alone interracial marriage. Some like Methodists and Anglicans, are becoming more open to discussion on the issue although it's still very controversial between the more liberal and conservative factions. Virtually none of your Baptist, Church of God, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Apostolic, etc. will have anything to do with miscegenation, and many go so far as to excommunicate or ban members who are "outed."[/quote1aa9a111ab]
What was your point? Trying to say gay marriage and interracial marriage is in any way similar in the eyes of mainstream Christian faith is completely wrong. I've spent much of life around many different Christian denominations, every one opposed to gay marriage (homosexuality in general) and NOT ONE that I can recall every teaching or preaching opposition to interracial marriage. Maybe in some deep south snake handling church run by KKK members. But being from the South myself, I can say I don't see it. There certainly may be personal prejudices with many people against interracial marriage, but I've yet to see it as part of mainstream Christian doctrine like their position on gay marriage is.

Care to elaborate and back your statement up with some facts or references, instead of copy/paste/search/replace on my post?

Oh, and in case I didn't make myself clear before, don't think I oppose gay marriage or civil unions or whatever. I'm simply attempting to clarify the other side's point of view, being as how I understand it even if I don't agree with it.

[quote0bfa03b103="dmorris68"]Care to elaborate and back your statement up with some facts or references, instead of copy/paste/search/replace on my post?[/quote0bfa03b103]
I was referring to recent history, not the present. From the same site that you linked above[quote0bfa03b103]In the 1960's[=http//www.religioustolerance.org/past_mor.htm]In the 1960's, many people of different Christian denominations believed that racial integration was against God's Law because it led to the "mixing of seed". The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) mounted boycotts against restaurants and hotels that served people of all races equally. (We mention the SBC because it remains the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, and one of the most active in the area of social and legal change). Laws in many states did not allow persons of different races to marry. A few decades after the US Supreme Court ended racial separation in the schools and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, the scene is very different. Those Biblical passages which were so often cited to condemn mixed-race marriages are now ignored or reinterpreted. The SBC has had the decency to apologize recently for the pain that it caused African-Americans and for any residual racism that remains in the organization. Many Christian denominations are now in the forefront fighting racism.[/quote0bfa03b103]

This article[=http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_34/ai_94160906/pg_1]This article from Baptist History and Heritage Journal is also a good overview of Southern religious opposition to the civil rights movement (Southern opposition of necessity being the focus due to the fact that the civil rights struggle occurred for the most part in the South)[quote0bfa03b103]The civil rights movement was unacceptable to southern fundamentalists for several reasons. First, it promoted a form of racial "mingling" which undermined the God ordained separation of the races and increased the possibility for racial intermarriage, a clear violation of biblical teaching. Second, it fostered social and political anarchy which disturbed the social order and engendered violence, riots, and civil disobedience, a violation of biblical teaching on authority and government. Third, at best it was a tool of socialists and communists in their efforts to bring down American democracy. At worst, the movement was itself a communist inspired attempt to destroy the nation, a threat to Christian civilization and freedom. Fourth, it was led by religious modernists, infidels, and apostates whose views on Scripture, the virgin birth, and other fundamental dogmas made them enemies of true religion and genuine faith, a violation of biblical doctrine.[/quote0bfa03b103]
and from the same issue of BHHJ, in the article "Dying from the Neck Up[=http//www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-94160905.html]Dying from the Neck Up"[quote0bfa03b103] On December 1, 1955, the civil rights movement proper began with Rosa Parks's refusal to give up her bus seat in Montgomery, Alabama. The boycott's eventual leader, Martin Luther King Jr., received remarkably little public criticism from Southern Baptist spokespersons in the early stages of his ascendancy as the nation's most prominent civil rights preacher. Again Baptist editors sought to keep such criticism private. After his assassination, however, harsh criticism and even denunciations of King finally emerged in the Baptist press. Those who supported or were sympathetic to King generally did not praise him by name in public. One leader who did take early aim at King was Henry L. Lyons Jr., pastor of Montgomery's Highland Avenue Baptist Church. Just after the end of the boycott in December 1956, Lyons used his weekly radio broadcast to make a biblical defense of segregation. Lyons was significantly elected as president of the Alabama Baptist state convention for 1955 and 1956. (13)

Similar to Lyons's pro-segregation argument, Carey Daniel, minister of the First Baptist Church of West Dallas, Texas, preached a sermon entitled, "God the Original Segregator." Appealing to the antebellum myth of Ham, Daniel cited Genesis 1032li "These are the families of the sons of Noah ... in their nations and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood." Holding that the biblical word for "nations" was the equivalent to "races," Daniel also found support in the New Testament. Like many segregationist preachers, he cited Acts 1726 that asserted "[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." (Interestingly enough, African-American preachers used the same text to draw the opposite conclusion about segregation, emphasizing that God had made all persons "of one blood"). (14) [/quote0bfa03b103]
The most obvious conclusion is that theology is never a vacuum; culture is a constant influence.

liEchoed in the original Loving v. Virginia circuit court ruling, as explained by the Supreme Court opinion[=http//wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/loving.htm]opinion[quote0bfa03b103]In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." [/quote0bfa03b103]

Thanks for elaborating.

Yes, the 60's were a different time entirely. Racial segregation was seen as culturally "acceptable" to much of Southern society in those days, and you're right that churches often absorb certain societal mores while at the same time condemning others. Remember that the KKK presents themselves as devout Christians, and the Bible is usually a centerpiece of their "rituals." And then they have their burning crosses, of course. Much of the SBC had that type of influence as well, hence my only partially tounge-in-cheek comment about snake handling churches run by the KKK. Once the theological argument for racism was widely invalidated and the position "reinterpreted," I've never personally experienced a church doctrine against interracial marriage. And I was born in the south, in the 60's, but thankfully wasn't exposed to such overt religious bigotry.

So if your argument is that gay marriage is today's hot theological topic, like segregation was in the 60's, then that may very well be a good way to look at it. And if so, I would hope that it suffers the same fate as the old theological position on segregation.

However I will counter with one thing the scriptures typically quoted to justify racial segregation were generally vague and never outright condemned other races, on the basis of their race alone (perhaps more for their deeds than their skin color). Things like the aforementioned references to "nations" were assumed to mean "races" but that was never confirmed anywhere in the Bible.

Another important distinction that many religious and non-religious types fail to make is that nearly all "bad" interpretations in the Bible come from the Old Testament. Christians by definition are not Jews. Judaism follows the teachings of the Old Testament, while Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The New Testament is where the Christian faith is rooted, with only anecdotal story references to the OT. Jesus told his followers to follow the Commandments of His Father (the 10 Commandments), love one another, repent of your sins and be baptized, and accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. According to Him, those were the rules to get into Heaven. Nowhere does he teach, and in fact even spoke out against, such OT laws such as stoning women, blood sacrifices, and other such things, which one would expect to include the segregation of post-flood "nations."

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is pretty clearly defined -- or at least MORE clearly defined -- in the Bible as a sin, although I don't recall how much it is referenced in the NT. Therefore I think it will be a much harder position to "reinterpret" than the racial position was. That's just my opinion of course. I'd love to see it happen though. In the meantime however, we need to move on legislation to at least provide civil unions that afford all the same secular rights and privileges as married couples have. Let the church catch up whenever society forces it to.

I don't think society needs to force anything on the churches. Their position on the issues will be a sign to people of what they really stand for.

To paraphrase Jesus, "you will know them by their fruits (or lack thereof, lolololololol)."

[quote6d64ff4dd8="JordanE"]
Well with the separation of church and state, if gay marriage is legal in there state there isn't really anyway to stop them. However in the christian faith marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a women. The act of homosexuality is also forbidding within the christian faith.

Its pretty hard to take a church seriously when they are attempting to preform acts that clearly contradict the teachings on which there faith has been founded upon.[/quote6d64ff4dd8]

Agree 120% with this post. The way i see it, those churches are trying to "change with the times" rather than sick to core values/beliefs. Just the other day i was watching the news and there was a segment on a transgender priest.... ?

I must've missed Thou shalt not be a transgendered priest. Is that somewhere in the back?

[quote631c29a2f7="JUNIOR6886"][quote631c29a2f7="JordanE"]
Well with the separation of church and state, if gay marriage is legal in there state there isn't really anyway to stop them. However in the christian faith marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a women. The act of homosexuality is also forbidding within the christian faith.

Its pretty hard to take a church seriously when they are attempting to preform acts that clearly contradict the teachings on which there faith has been founded upon.[/quote631c29a2f7]

Agree 120% with this post. The way i see it, those churches are trying to "change with the times" rather than sick to core values/beliefs. Just the other day i was watching the news and there was a segment on a transgender priest.... ?[/quote631c29a2f7]

Glad to see i'm not alone.

[quote64b2b3b0e5="wasabe"]I must've missed Thou shalt not be a transgendered priest. Is that somewhere in the back?[/quote64b2b3b0e5]

Oh come on, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you can tell me that a transgendered clergyman is something that churches have always embraced, then I accept that you're making a valid point.

He used that as ONE example for churches changing core values.

[quote3d5047146e="wasabe"]I must've missed Thou shalt not be a transgendered priest. Is that somewhere in the back?[/quote3d5047146e]



roll

technically a gay man could become a priest right?

[quoteaea9056e12="zdub08"]technically a gay man could become a priest right?[/quoteaea9056e12]
A Catholic priest? No, not if the Church knew about it. The Catholic Church does not condone homosexual tendencies, and certainly not in their priesthood. They claim to not condemn homosexual "temptations" which they consider involuntary, however any encouragement or voluntary action is condemned as perverted and sinful. I suppose one could say that since priests take a vow of celibacy that a virgin gay priest could become ordained as long as he never acted on his "urges," but I've not heard of an example.

It has been suggested that the most likely reason for the relatively large number of pedophile priests that target boys is not due to an innate homosexuality, but rather their vow of celibacy. Over the years, the sexual tension builds to the point that it affects their psyche in such a way as to make the weaker minded priests sexually "insane." So they target the easiest outlet. An adult relationship would be too risky in terms of getting caught, and spending time with little girls would attract too much attention, therefore young boys would theoretically be the easiest way to get the satisfaction they crave. Not to excuse it at all, they're a sick bunch, but it's a common observation. If the Church would remove the celibacy vow and allow priests to marry, then I expect you'd see a huge decline in that sort of aberrant behavior.

[baea9056e12]EDIT[/baea9056e12] While doing a bit of research on the official Catholic position, I came across this article[=http//www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp]this article on Catholic.com. I mention it because it addresses the New Testament position on homosexuality, something I had questioned in a previous post.

[quoteaea9056e12]Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 126–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 69–10, NIV). [/quoteaea9056e12]

[quoteca98717e22="zdub08"]technically a gay man could become a priest right?[/quoteca98717e22]

[quoteca98717e22]Many priests and theologians have commented about the gay sub-cultures in Catholic seminaries[=http//www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm]gay sub-cultures in Catholic seminaries
•An anonymous priest from the Boston area commented in an interview with Joe Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald "there's a subculture of gay priests and everyone knows it. I went through seminary with a lot of them and got hit on. And when I reported it, I was harassed to a point where, emotionally, it was very difficult to get ordained. I'm not the only one who had to fight to get through it; I know guys who left because of it. It was clear there was a cabal tacitly saying, 'Don't bother reporting this stuff.' You wouldn't believe the self-justifications, like, 'Well, celibacy only applies to not getting married, so since we're not getting married we can do whatever we want.' It was horrible, with a lot of intimidation, but I stayed because I felt this was what God was calling me to do; besides, if I'd walked, they'd have won." 8
•Father McBrien, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame, commented that some seminary students "...who feel they have a genuine vocation for priesthood go into a seminary and feel very alienated by the gay culture. I don't say this in any homophobic sense. It's just the reality." 2
•Pope John Paul II held a meeting with the American cardinals which dealt with the clerical sex scandals. Afterward, Bishop Wilton Gregory, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said "One of the difficulties we do face in seminary life or recruitment is made possible when there does exist a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexual men think twice [about entering.] It is an ongoing struggle to make sure the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men." 9
•R. Scott Appleby, a history professor at Notre Dame, said "People I know quite well have left the seminary either in disgust because people are not keeping vows, or in alienation because they’re not gay. In some cases it’s a serious problem." 3
•The Most Rev. Wilton Gregory said "[T]here does exist a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexual men think twice." 3
•The Rev. Charles Bouchard, president of the Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis said "I think straight priests and seminarians shouldn’t be whining. I just don’t think it’s a big deal." 3
•Father Donald Cozzens wrote "What impact does the gay subcultrue have on the straight priest and seminarian?....straight men in a predominantly or significantly gay environment commonly experience chronic destabilization, a common symptom of which is self doubt...Their psychic confusion, understandably, has significant implications for both their spiritual vitality and emotional balance." 10
•Timothy Radcliffe, Master of the Order of Preachers, commented on the emergence of a homosexual sub-culture within a seminary or religious order "It can threaten the unity of the community; it can make it harder for the brethren to practice the chastity which we have vowed. It can put pressure on brethren to think of themselves in a way that is not central to their vocation as preachers of the Kingdom..." 11[/quoteca98717e22]

The catholics are a bunch of hypocrites...don't mean to offend anyone, but its true.

[quotefd711b5ffa="dmorris68"]I suppose one could say that since priests take a vow of celibacy that a virgin gay priest could become ordained as long as he never acted on his "urges," but I've not heard of an example.[/quotefd711b5ffa]
yeah, that's what I meant.

I have yet to hear from anyone, anywhere, an argument against gay marriage that wasn't saying, "God says they can't, so I'm against it."

And when you consider that upheld belief, I'm amazed these same people are tolerant, or participatory, of similar acts, or even acts condemned by God. Birth control? Oral sex? Sex for fun? Masturbation? (These are only the ones similar to the issue at hand, as far as biblical interpretation, but I could probably list a hundred things God says Don't Do that those against gay marriage invariably indulge in.)

The only conclusion I can make is that passively forcing others to conform to their beliefs is easier than living the rigorous life demanded from the Bible; I can only conclude that those against gay marriage that are not living as monks, hermits, or clergymen are hypocrites, intentionally or unintentionally so.

I Support it. I'm all about individual liberty. I Believe you should be able to do anything you want, So long as you don't infringe on other peoples right. [Yes, that would include taking Heroine/Cocaine/Marijuana, Anything.]

Are you still writing your paper?

<-- Against. Moral beliefs.

[quotea5399b76a8="ilanbg"]I have yet to hear from anyone, anywhere, an argument against gay marriage that wasn't saying, "God says they can't, so I'm against it."

And when you consider that upheld belief, I'm amazed these same people are tolerant, or participatory, of similar acts, or even acts condemned by God. Birth control? Oral sex? Sex for fun? Masturbation? (These are only the ones similar to the issue at hand, as far as biblical interpretation, but I could probably list a hundred things God says Don't Do that those against gay marriage invariably indulge in.)

The only conclusion I can make is that passively forcing others to conform to their beliefs is easier than living the rigorous life demanded from the Bible; I can only conclude that those against gay marriage that are not living as monks, hermits, or clergymen are hypocrites, intentionally or unintentionally so.[/quotea5399b76a8]

Most of that is unfortunately very true. A lot of Christians (myself included sometimes) have lapsed into this "pick what you want buffet style" of Christianity

Studies have shown that some chemical in the brain contributes to what gender a human is attracted to. You don't have a choice who you're sexually attracted to.

[quotea812b56d08="TFOAF"]Studies have shown that some chemical in the brain contributes to what gender a human is attracted to. You don't have a choice who you're sexually attracted to.[/quotea812b56d08]

I do & it isn't you. LULz.


I was against (i know, boo) and now I'm for. I'll get married in Canada if I have to but I will get married.

[quote98fbbb0c48="dmorris68"][quote98fbbb0c48="zdub08"]technically a gay man could become a priest right?[/quote98fbbb0c48]
A Catholic priest? No, not if the Church knew about it. The Catholic Church does not condone homosexual tendencies, and certainly not in their priesthood. They claim to not condemn homosexual "temptations" which they consider involuntary, however any encouragement or voluntary action is condemned as perverted and sinful. I suppose one could say that since priests take a vow of celibacy that a virgin gay priest could become ordained as long as he never acted on his "urges," but I've not heard of an example.

It has been suggested that the most likely reason for the relatively large number of pedophile priests that target boys is not due to an innate homosexuality, but rather their vow of celibacy. Over the years, the sexual tension builds to the point that it affects their psyche in such a way as to make the weaker minded priests sexually "insane." So they target the easiest outlet. An adult relationship would be too risky in terms of getting caught, and spending time with little girls would attract too much attention, therefore young boys would theoretically be the easiest way to get the satisfaction they crave. Not to excuse it at all, they're a sick bunch, but it's a common observation. If the Church would remove the celibacy vow and allow priests to marry, then I expect you'd see a huge decline in that sort of aberrant behavior.
[/quote98fbbb0c48]

what you're saying about the build up of sexual tension makes sense but I would rather see priests breaking the vow more effectively weeded out than to have the vow removed altogether.

marriage i think by definition means a man and a woman. i'm not morally against gays, but "marriage" it ain't and shouldn't be.

early 20th century marriage i think by definition means a man and a woman of the same race.

19th century marriage i think by definition means a white man and a white woman.

18th century marriage i think by definition means a man and his property.

[quote54a04685ad="wasabe"]early 20th century marriage i think by definition means a man and a woman of the same race.

19th century marriage i think by definition means a white man and a white woman.

18th century marriage i think by definition means a man and his property.[/quote54a04685ad]


Dude this is getting pretty annoying. We all feel diffrently on this issue, but theres no need to be so sarcastic and antagonistic.

[quote84e83e1aa8="wasabe"]early 20th century marriage i think by definition means a man and a woman of the same race.

19th century marriage i think by definition means a white man and a white woman.

18th century marriage i think by definition means a man and his property.[/quote84e83e1aa8]

This is getting to be a theme with you. If you don't have a real argument, don't post in the thread. You're just being facetious.

[quote5628817591="CollidgeGraduit"][quote5628817591="wasabe"]early 20th century marriage i think by definition means a man and a woman of the same race.

19th century marriage i think by definition means a white man and a white woman.

18th century marriage i think by definition means a man and his property.[/quote5628817591]

This is getting to be a theme with you. If you don't have a real argument, don't post in the thread. You're just being facetious.[/quote5628817591]
The argument I'm making should be pretty obvious.

[quoteaa21a2ff20="Godrockdj"]Are you still writing your paper?

<-- Against. Moral beliefs. [/quoteaa21a2ff20]
No the paper is done, but I would like to hear your view.

[quotea696fe1cf7="Godrockdj"]Most of that is unfortunately very true. A lot of Christians (myself included sometimes) have lapsed into this "pick what you want buffet style" of Christianity[/quotea696fe1cf7]

How do you justify it, though? (That isn't a facetious question; I do mean it.) I'm not religious but I have to imagine if there's anything you don't fuck with, it's the word of God. The one thing I admire about religious radicals is that at least they're consistent in their religious actions (i.e. upholding the word of God whatever the costs); I have trouble understanding how someone can be religious but not enough so to dedicate their lives to upholding their beliefs. To me it comes across as a lack of faith, or indicative of how religion is used as a crutch by those who can't, for whatever reason, handle whatever aspect of their lives their religion supplements.

I may come off as critical but I'm not bitter, if it appears that way. Religion fascinates me but answers to these tougher questions are harder to come by.

I can post my research paper from composition supporting it if anyone likes.

Post it.

k just 4 u wen i get home