Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

No, it isn't. You want to restrict marriage based on sex. No, it doesn't. Ever heard of this thing called "freedom"? What about letting people decide for themselves what the right combination is? Emotion is all you have. Your emotion is that same sex marriages are icky, so no one should be allowed to do it. Nope, that's what reproduction is. That is not marriage.

How naive of you. If that natural parent dies, the family of the natural parent can bar that person's life partner from ever seeing that child again. If the couple breaks up, one of the partners has no recourse for visitation.

The despicable thing is that you deny that same sex couples can love each other as deeply as a heterosexual couple.

There were many times when I was at work when an emergency happened, so it was my wife who handled the emergency. And there were times when she had travelled out-of-state with our children. IOW, there are many cases in which both parents are not present, but rather only one. That's the problem. Under the old laws, the partner has none of those right. Hospital visitation rights. Being authorized to make medical decisions for a family member. Custody of the children when the natural parent dies or is incapacitated. Inheritance (that is the basis of one of the lawsuits that brought down DOMA). Military housing -- base housing is only provided for opposite-sex families and housing allowance to offset off-base living costs is much higher for married members than for single members, as well as the difficulty that single members can have to get permission to move out of bachelor enlisted quarters. And survivor benefits. And health care coverage.All because you personally decide that you don't like it. That would be one solution, but as has been pointed out the term, "marriage", is so intricately intertwined within laws and contracts that it would be virtually impossible to go through all of them and change them. For one thing, that would require state and national legislatures to create and pass bills for each and every one of those laws ... and that's not even considering all the contracts.Marriage is a legal term which is independent of the religious definition. The legal definition of marriage can be modified without affecting the religious definitions. What is important is for the government to recognize these marriages as such. You and your church is and will be perfectly within your rights to not recognize them. Who would care? There are plenty of churches that would recognize them.

A friend or neighbor or babysitter would not be able to stand in for a parent in making decisions for medical treatment.The interviewee stated that scenario as having actually happened to others. All you need is one overzealous official to get that whole nightmare started. That is a very big deal.

Well, we have now gone through over a thousand posts and the only objections that have been presented are that homosexual behavior and same sex marriage have been considered a abhorrent by some chapters of Club Christian historically.No one disputes that. Slavery was historically valid as was stoning folk and crucifixion and arranged marriages and indentured servitude and a host of other things now generally not allowed in the US. In addition practices once banned such as marriage between races are now acceptable.In the case of same-sex marriages in the US we are still in the transition period relating to allowing universal same-sex marriage in the US.Very compelling reasons (see Message 1140 and Message 1143 and Message 1146 and Message 1159 ) have been presented for allowing same-sex marriages and no real rebuttal offered other than tradition ... In addition, no church well be forced to perform or recognize same-sex marriages any more than the Roman Catholic Christian church has been forced to marry divorced couples or the Jewish faith has been forced to abandon the practice of "Gets".The solution really is simply.If you personally believe homosexuality is a sin, don't enter into homosexual relationships.If your Chapter of Club Christian does not want to perform same-sex marriages, don't perform same-sex marriages.If your Chapter of Club Christian does not want to recognize same-sex marriages as valid then your Chapter of Club Christian is perfectly free to remain ignorant of reality.In the US individuals are still free to hold even the most ridiculous beliefs and to present their position and beliefs, even the most vile and evil ones.But if you are a business, obey the law. Don't discriminate.Edited by jar, : add link to a great message

As I've said many times, it has nothing to do with anybody's marriage, it's not a personal thing. It's about the social concept of marriage, the definition of marriage, the meaning of marriage as such, which needs to be preserved as the uniting of a man with a woman.

Because gay marriage is a travesty. Marriage is only for a man and a woman.

The point dear RAZD is that my analogy had absolutely nothing to do with anybody's personal experience of marriage, sex or love or anything on that level, it was an objective abstract analogy to illustrate the complementarity of the differences between the sexes that marriage is intended to unite. It was intended as a definition of the parties involved, had nothing whatever to do with personal experience.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, then you're all for people marrying their dogs, their siblings, etc. if you want to let people make this decision for themselves.When I was fifteen my best friend and I thought we were very clever to imagine that she and I and our boyfriends, who were nonexistent at the time, could marry all together into a little group of four to live together forever. We wrote creative little stories about our "married" life together. We didn't have the slightest lesbian inclinations but we wanted to be the closest possible friends forever. She told her mother about our idea, who was a very progressive woman who had been an anthropologist before her own marriage, and her mother informed us that the idea wasn't original, that people think up those things all the time.Much later I came to the conclusion that:Marriage is for the purpose of uniting the two different but complementary designs of human beings known as male and female. And yes, reproduction is definitely a major reason for the uniting of the two.

quote:

---

Because gay marriage is a travesty. Marriage is only for a man and a woman.

---

And you wonder why people think you're a bigot ?Your personal feelings on the matter don't change the facts. There are real injustices. Giving legal recognition to gay marriage is a simple and effective way of countering these injustices. And if that upsets you, too bad. Keep your religious rules for your Churches marriages, where they belong.

No I don't wonder, I understand why bigots would call me a bigot.

Oh, of course you don't want to know. There are times when you almost make me wish that Christianity was true. But I'm not that cruel.

Posted earlier answer to you too soon. No, not in any sense that allows your phony misuse of the word, only in the sense that marriage is meant only for the two legitimate natural sexes. Which is what I was answering in the other post that didn't quite get finished when I said you would then favor people marrying dogs, siblings, groups of friends or whatever.Marriage is an objective social institution for which people have to be qualified, it isn't something people are allowed to determine for themselves. No, I'm thinking objectively about this and you are not, I am not deciding any of it on emotion as you are doing.Marriage is an objective social institution for which people have to be qualified, as I said above. The basic qualification is having been born male and female. It is the definition of the two parties who are qualified for marriage.

Have said no such thing, have said absolutely nothing about love, keep saying that I'm not talking about feelings or personal experience at all, but defining marriage as an objective social institution that people have to be qualified for. Period.