No, I am not a homosexual. But I really do not understand why we will not the people who happened to be gay get married. I mean is really hurting us? If we really are a free country, then shouldn’t people be able to do whatever the please!
If you want to marry John or Sharon I don’t care. People get so hyped up at what their neighbors are doing, and then some of the people think they have the right to put their two cents in about what the neighbors are doing.
If a person is gay, they are gay and that is what they choose! Step off! And of course if that person happens to fall in love with someone of the same sex, then so be it. They are happy with each other and they are just asking to experience what a heterosexual couple experiences with marriage.
Of course homosexual couples can still be together without getting married. But it is a complete sign of disrespect that the entire country will not acknowledge they have made a God given choice.
We just need to be whom we are inside. We don’t need to put restrictions on others’ lives. I’m not hurting if a homosexual says they are married and wears rings.
Is Gay Marriage really hurting you?
By kelsc27 - Posted on February 24th, 2008
People just don't understand homosexuality. They get caught up in their religious beliefs (which I don't know why it matters, since we should have separation of Church and State, right?) and push them onto other people. I am always lost when a religion that preaches acceptance can have "devote" followers who are so intollerant.
i've been trying to figure this out too. I'm glad i'm not the only one who completely dumbfounded by the entire thing. i completely agree with u. 110%
It's not always that people neccessarily have a problem with homosexuals, thats just the fanatical one's reasoning. While I am a Christian and do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I try to keep my viewpoint unbiased.
The truth is this. If homosexual marriage is made legal, then it rewrites the definition of marriage, and opens the door for bigamy, polygamy, marriage to animals and all sorts of things. Do we really want to mess with this?
Allowing gay marriage doesn't just do that, but it takes away a basic foundation that we as a country accept.
marriage is the joining of two people who love each other unconditionally. that is all marriage is and should be. therefore i dont understand why it bothers people that they want to wear a ring to say they are human too an are apart of our world. it has nothing to do with politics!
Unconditionally? How do you love someone unconditionally? And if it is unconditional, why are there so many divorces rocking America?
noone marries a person thinking they are going to get divorced. if they do then they shouldnt be married. when I, not others, think of marriage i think of unconditional love. that is what marriage is. unconditional love is the kind of love that is unbreakable. im sorry that u dont understand that, because i think it is one of the few things that people can truly enjoy. i actually think it is necessary for life!
True. But if you start out marriage with the idea of unconditional love, it should stay that way "til death." It doesn't though. Not every time.
I totally understand what unconditional love is because I have witnessed it. Love is more than a feeling though. It is a commitment.
I think that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts responded well to this concern...
A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide. This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions...I do not doubt the sincerity of deeply held moral or religious beliefs that make inconceivable to some the notion that any change in the common-law definition of what constitutes a legal civil marriage is now, or ever would be, warranted. But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families. See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2486 (2003) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (moral disapproval, with no other valid State interest, cannot justify law that discriminates against groups of persons); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992) ("Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code"). ~ Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003)
These are strawmen, and the "marriage to animals" comment is particularly rediculous. All marriages are at their legal core a form of contract, and animals can't enter into contractural obligations. This suggestion is just a canard that attempts to evoke an emotional response in lieu of using actual, legal reasoning.
How so? Aside from the fact that the freedom to marry is a basic right afforded to individual citizens, how does two men or two women getting married change anything at all for an opposite sex couple who decides to get married?
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I agree that being homosexual is a choice. Thank you for not pushing the issue about them being "born that way."
However... homosexuals can never experience what heterosexual couples do. It is impossible. God created marriage to be one man and one woman for life. It is the ultimate picture of Christ's relationship with His Church.
Yes, God gave homosexuals a choice. But He does not condone their choice, and neither should we.
To answer your title question - Is Gay Marriage really hurting you? - Yes. Homosexuals spread and have to live with the consequences of STDs, which are already on a rampage. And, honestly, I don't want to have to teach my future children that some kids have two mommies or two daddies because our nation sanctions sinful behavior. And it will lead to the break down of society. No society can survive if there is no way for couples to reproduce.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Guess what? SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Your religion is TOTALLY irrelevant.
Hi, I'm a homosexual, and I have no STDs. I live with two other homosexuals (as well as a straight girl) and they have no STDs as well. In fact, not a SINGLE homosexual person I know has a STD. I have, in fact, never met a homosexual person with a STD. I have, on the other hand, met many homosexuals who practice safe sex or abstinence.
You fail to explain how exactly homosexuality is "sinful".
Guess what? It's not a religion; It's the truth.
It is sinful because it is a perversion of God's original design. He created a man and a woman. If homosexuality had been part of His plan, He would have created two of each... or just two women (or just two men). Anything that goes against God's plan - be it stealing, cheating, lying, murdering, adultering, being angry, cursing, or others - is sin.
Truth or not, it's still a religion - look up the definition of religion, if you need to. And according to the laws governing the US and pretty much every Western country, there is a separatation between church and state. So again, your religious is irrelevant.
It's a perversion of God's original design? Really now? Then why do people have homosexual feelings in the first place? Why do other animals have homosexual relations and even have homosexual families? Obviously God did not create two women or two men because reproduction is needed, at least to start the world off.
Being angry is against God's plan? Ridiculous. Righteous anger is an excellent tool. If being angry (but not acting negatively on that anger) is a sin, why does God make us feel anger? If loving the same gender is wrong, then why does God make so many people feel that way? Why does God torture kids and adults for feelings they cannot control and don't necessarily act on? Where exactly does God say that loving the same gender is wrong? Specific sex acts are forbidden - never love.
Anyway, what is it your business? Separation of church and state, remember? You can't shove your religion down other people's throat or force your religious beliefs upon them.
My "religion" is not irrelevant; it forms my worldview, just as your religion forms yours. And my worlview affects every area of my life, including politics.
Yes, it is a perversion. God did not give people homosexual feelings; it is a result of sin - disobedience to, a perversion of, or anything against God's plan.
Yes, being angry is against God's plan. It is sin. Matthew 5:22a records where Jesus says, "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." God doesn't make us feel it; again, it is a result of sin - disobedience to, a perversion of, or anything against God's plan. He doesn't use those feelings as torture. If that were true, then He would use every feeling we have that is against His plan as torture . But He doesn't; we have the opportunity to repent and turn from those feelings/actions.
Loving the same gender is not forbidden, you are right. The Greek of the New Testament has three different words for love though - phileo, the friendship love; eros, the sensual love; and agape, God's unconditional love. Loving, as in phileo, the same gender is not forbidden or wrong. But eros is. Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
I will be praying for you, Kiota. Perhaps someday before you die you will know and understand the truth.
Because if you do not before you die, you will find it out soon after.
Oh, yeah... and separation of church and state has nothing to do with it. In fact, separation of church and state is not even in the Constitution! So please don't try to pull that one... it won't work.
Um, yes it is. It's in the first amendment.
No, the phrase "separation of church and state" came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote.
The first amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
It only says Congress can't establish a state religion, like England's Church of England. And, actually, if you want to bring up Amendment 1, I have the freedom of speech, or press, or free exercise to say what I want regarding my faith. I am in no way forcing my beliefs on others when I simply present the truth.
The separation of church and state still applies.
Not allowing gay marriage, however, IS forcing your relgion down others throats.
According to the Supreme Court of the United States...
"At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." ~ Reynolds v. United States (1878)
Please educate yourself.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
first of all, "gays being the only ones who have STD's" is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. STD stands for Sexually Transmitted Disease...meaning it was transmitted my sex. So to say that homosexuals are the only ones with STD's is saying that homosexuals are the only ones have sex...and that I'm sure we all know is complete crap! I honestly dont know one homosexual with an STD and I know a couple heterosexuals with STD's, strictly because they had unprotected sex!
second of all, there is no Christian out there that has the right to call out anyone's sins. if you disagree with homosexuality, dont become one! But you shouldn't call another Christian out for their sins! Because I promise we all sin, and we all have to take it up with one person and one person only...and that happens to be GOD!!!!!!!!
but thank you for speaking your mind! I just wanted go give you some food for thought!
I didn't say gays were the ONLY ones who have STDs. They spread 'em just as well as promiscuous high school and college kids do. Your world just might be small. Try checking the stats for STDs.
As for not calling anyone out on their sins, here is some food for thought: "He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward/ Than he who flatters with the tongue." - Proverbs 28:23
"It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise than for a man to hear the song of fools. " - Ecclesiastes 7:5
"Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. " - 1 Timothy 5:20
dude you have no right to say anyone is a better Christian than the other! you do that when you call someone else's sins on the internet. if you are close-minded that's fine, but dont judge others for the way they choose to live.
God says love everyone!
When did we start comparing Christians?
I am not close-minded. I am quite decided.
And, excuse me, but when you tell me not to judge others for the way they choose to live (after having labeled me close-minded), you are indeed judging me. Hmm, would that be considered circle reasoning?
Even if gay people DID spread STDs, the solution is to inform people about safe sex and abstinence, regardless of sexual orientation. Besides, gay people would generally spread STDs to other gay people.
Your opinion is poorly informed.
Your presumptuous and religious dismissal of what gay people experience in our relationships is both incorrect, and irrelevant. Marriage has been around a lot longer than your religion, my friend, and even if that wasn't the case our Constitution forbids using religious arguments of this sort as a basis for our laws.
Now you're just being silly. This might be a surprise to you, but straight people get STD's, too.
Tough. Your concept of "sin" is irrelvant to our laws. Our Constitution ensures that as citizens, we are not required to conform to anyone else's religious hang ups.
What about a same-sex marriage could possibly prevent you from having sex with a woman and making a child if that is what you and she wish to do? The gay people in this country are going to be gay whether we marry or not, and vice versa.
Keep your money. You paid too much for this opinion...
percivale
------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Considering that marriage was institutionalized at the beginning of my "religion" *shudders*, I'd say it's been around equally as long. Now who's poorly informed?
Whoa! Did someone miss the fact that I'm female?
There is so much more I could say in response, but it's pointless to throw my pearls before swine any longer.
Would someone please explain to me why do the most "convicted" christians always seem to be the ones that are the least educated about the history and theology of the christian religion?
Actually, dear...it would still be you. Prior to the 10th Century, most marriages took place wholly outside the confines and authority of the christian church. That began to change as at first, priests began to "bless" marriages after the fact, and it wasn't until the 13th Century that marriage actually became an official "sacrament" of the christian religion. As is often the case with dogmatic changes of this sort, the church claimed retroactively that it had "always" been a sacrament (in the Council of Trent, 1545 C.E.), but historically speaking this simply isn't true. In reality, marriage was declared an official institution and sacrament of the catholic church at the Council of Florence in 1431 C.E., though to be fair the move to do this had been slowly growing for several hundred years prior.
And, it is also important to note that whatever christianity may have done with the insitution of marriage, the practice did not originate with that religion (or with the religion of judaism). In fact, the very legal codes I mentioned above all included marriage statutes, and the practice easily dates back at least as far as the whole of recorded history.
I did miss the fact that you're female (perhaps you should fill out your ProU bio), and for that I am sorry. But, it doesn't change the point of my question, which I notice you avoided actually answering. The fact is that same-sex marriages don't prevent or undermine the validity or strength of already existing marriages at all.
To quote the landmark decision of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003)...
"Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit."
Actually, the pig is one of the most intelligent animals in the barnyard, and I think it is rather more likely that you fear for your ability defend your position from the assault of a discerning argument. But, you do have the right to quit the field whenever you wish...
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Mmm, I remember your posts from the last time I was here. Glad to see you're still around.
I was going to post more to this thread... and then I saw you already posted precisely everything I was going to say, except better worded and with sources. You are my new hero. Also I'm going to join the ProU GSA because I saw it in your sig. :D
---------------------------------------------------
Please see my recent blog post, "Genocide and Student Activism": http://www.progressiveu.org/041447-genocide-and-student-activism
Thank you, and welcome aboard. :)
perci
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Wait, um. How can I join?
...to join from the link in my sig. But I'll send you an invite, just in case.
perci
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"and that is what they choose"
Um, what?
Are you saying people CHOOSE their sexuality?