Same sex marriage-Massachusetts

[Trefor Heywood]

Long Gone:

quote:

---

You've got it backwards. I'm more than willing to consider almost any proposal. The onus is on you (or those advocating change) to show good reason to legally formalize and recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. You haven't.

---

If you cannot accept that people regard it as a legitimate civil right that will end the current discrimination I don't see how we can progress to a concensus. In a free society, the rule of thumb is that things should be allowed unless there is a pressing reason why they should not be allowed. It is not whether a part of society agrees or disagrees. Nobody is forced to be a carnivore or a vegetarian, to drink or not to drink alcohol, to vote or not to vote. People are able to make choices the option for either is available.

Heteros can choose to marry or not to marry, gays are denied that option and to claim that it is because they can marry a member of the opposite sex is a non sequitur.

Laleos points regarding marrying non humans is equally a non sequitur. Further is it an argument ad adsurdam. No matter what arrangements humans may choose to make and there can be very complex arrangments, marriage requires a level playing field definition. If the state wishes to define it a one plus one at any given time then it is only discriminatory if if it states that only a certain one plus one human combination is allowed. Animals are incapable of making informed moral choices, they cannot make promises and say "I do". Animals are not citizens, they cannot vote or pay taxes and they are not the same flesh.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[mj412]

If I hear you your saying a same sex marriage will encourage sexual abuse betwen a minor child and an adult.

that is your concern...

Minor children can not marry adult or even have "consentual" sex by law with an adult(any person over 18) a 17 girl/boy can have consentual sex with a 18 year and agree to it and that 18 can and often is arrested for RAPE regardless of how the minor "feels" about the sex. A minor child does not have "the right" to consent to sex with any adult and any adult willing to engage in an act of sex with any minor regardless of circumstances can and often is aressed for statutory RAPE!

If your concern is a minor childs parents giving consent to a homosexual marriage

COME ON !! that is not in every state and a parent would of course consider the childs own sexuality first and as the other poster told the story of her daughter many homosexuals know they are homosexual from a very young age. WE assume in this country parents love their children. If that is your issue then take that particular law up with the states that allow parental consent for both homosexuals and hetrosexuals.

so is the problem the fact parents can give consent to an underage marriage or the fact they are homosexual?

Sexual abuse is going to happen it always has and always will, how does allowing two adult consenting to sex have any thing at all to do with sexual abuse?

that is ONE HUGE LEAP and we as a people are so much wiser than to consider your reasoning.

these are two seperate ideas and issues.

open the door to these things by saying America "allows" same sex marriage?

And your solution is that it is better to keep it in the dark and not ask for a legal definition or standard?

homosexuality will not end just because they can not get married, and sexual abuse of minors will not end just because they can be married.

I hear you saying If we do not allow homosexuals to marry it will make people think twice about being homosexuals ? I do not agree.

Marriage is honored in our society in many ways ,(we all heard President Bush sing the merits ) Yet how does that IMPACT the number of people having sex without being marriage ?

not much .

[mj412]

my mother was married at fourteen . my sister thirteen. My other sister 17. all these marriages lasted longer than many "of age ""marriages.

this perspective does happen to be what town you may live in as far as how "wrong" you may think it is.

None of them were pregnate, but today that is the reason many "underage " marriages are allowed and they often must go to a judge for a third party to grant consent for the license.

so the answer is then teen babies without a famly? I worked in one "red neck" lol town where every single teen had babies I said babies and to not have a child by the age of twenty was a strange weird thing .. it is normal today to have babies as a teen (did I say ok or best for anyone ?) but the president is addressing the "baby daddys" issue with encouraging marriage .

should minors be having sex? well ya know ? fix that on another thread it is a seperate issue all together.

[LG]

Trefor,

I'm not trying to reach a consensus. I'm trying to exchange thoughts and opinions, and possibly reach agreement on some points. I actually agree with you more than it may seem. If the people decide to expand the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, I'm OK with that. If they decide to form a new kind of legal union for same-sex couples, whether it includes all or most of the "particulars" of marriage, I'm OK with that too. I don't care that much about the particulars of any such arrangements. What I care about is the particulars of the functions of government.

I can see validity in arguments for some sort of legally formalized union for same-sex couples, with the particulars to be worked out by relevant governing entities. I also see validity in distinguishing such unions from legally formalized unions of one person of each gender (current "traditional" marriages). What the unions might be called is of no concern to me. That the state can, if the people wish, distinguish between the two is of concern. (Note that "state" may mean either an individual State or the United States, as a country. It could also mean any similar entity in other parts of the world, but those are not my direct concern.)

Concerning the laws of the State of Texas, where I live, I can't think of any reason that I would object to a same-sex union being considered functionally, or even nominally, identical with a marriage. That's not to say that some reason might not come up, either upon further consideration of the issue and current law, or in considering future laws, but I can't think of one right now. In other words, if Texas proposed (by legislative act or constitutional amendment) a legally recognized same-sex union similar to your British one, I'd probably not object. With a little convincing regarding the interest of the State, I might even support it. I would oppose anything (any act of Texas) that had a binding effect on the marriage laws of other States, or on the United States, as a country.

Concerning the laws of the United States, I'm neither in favor of, nor strongly opposed to, offering similar status to formalized same-sex unions as to current marriages. In order to support a change, I'd need to be convinced that the proposed change would further a legitimate state interest. As things are right now, I'm rather apathetic about any specific federal laws.

Concerning the laws of other States, I don't much care one way or another, except that I'm strongly opposed to any State actions that would have a binding effect on marriage laws of other States or on the United States.

[J0nny Ling0]

MJ- you crack me up!

You said

quote:

---

I hear you saying If we do not allow homosexuals to marry it will make people think twice about being homosexuals? I do not agree.

---

I never said any thing of the sort. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. And I don't agree with that quote either.

Now you say that no parent would ever give consent in a situation like that. Well, parents have and do give consent to their young daughters. You just said that your mother was married at fourteen, and your sister at thirteen. Well, I am assuming that your Mom and Dad are just that: A Mom-female and your Dad-male.

What about present day gay couples who have already been allowed to adopt children? And when gay couples are allowed to marry legally, they too will adopt children. When their children grow up, then it is not too far fetched to be concerned that this possibility of a very young boy being given parental consent by their gay parents to marry an older man.

And if it is legal today for hetero couples to give parental consent in such a situation, at that point it would be considered "discrimination" for gay couples to not be allowed to do the same thing. I can see the lawsuits coming now..

So, anybody else?

[LG]

Johnny,

I haven't addressed your concern, because I don't think it's any more of an issue than marriage of a minor, with parental consent, to an older person of different gender.

[J0nny Ling0]

So Long Gone, let me get this straight.

Are you saying that if a couple gave consent that their 15 year old son marry a thirty year old man, that this would be ok? Yes or no.

[LG]

I didn't put my stamp of approval on anything, Jonny. I meant only what I said, no more.

[J0nny Ling0]

Ok Long Gone, But let me just ask you this:

If a married couple gave their consent for their fifteen year old son to marry a thirty year old man, would this be acceptable to you?

[Mister P-Mosh]

As an adult, I was eligable to get married. Since I'm heterosexual, I chose a woman to marry who happened to be an adult and eligable as well.

If a 40 year old man wishes to marry a 10 year old girl, that doesn't work because the girl is not old enough to be eligable for marriage.

Marriage can be seen as an individual right or priveledge. If someone is an adult, they should be able to marry another eligable person. This could mean homosexual marriages. This could eventually even mean polygamy. Guess what? I think that if people are old enough and mature enough to decide for themselves, I don't have a right to restrict what they do to themselves in their own life.

As for the validity of homosexuality, I don't really think I should question that either. I don't like it, but I don't feel that I have the right to restrict it either. I've learned to respect gay people for everything else as individuals and leave their bedrooms to themselves. Even if we don't like what they are doing, as long as they keep it to themselves it's their right to do so.

[Trefor Heywood]

Long Gone:

If I get you right it could be more the terminology rather than fact itself? Also you are concerned that the "full faith and credit clause" aspect might have impact where you don't think it should?

This kind of thing is a problem of the Federal system - that's one of the reasons why Congress panicked and passed DOMA. Here in the UK an act of parliament affects the whole country unless it is specified to affect only part. Scotland for example historically has different legal arrangements and historically what defined a legal mariage was diferent to that of England and Wales. Hence many couple used to run off to get married at Gretna Green but when they returned home their marriage was accepted as legal even though it would not have been legal if it has taken place in England or Wales. This would appear to be something similar to the arrangements that you have. Now marriage has been standardised.

I can fully appreciate that states are proud of their own independance in non-federal matters and that Texas, particularly, has its own history as an independant republic.

Yet some rights by their nature have to apply federally and this would seem to be the main area of contention. It's not just a case of "well you can go and get married in another state or live in one that suits you better."

I honestly wish there was an easy way of sorting it out that would work for all parties. Marriage has more international implications that individual states cannot in themselves resolve.

If a US citizen marries a foreign national for example then the foreign partner is allowed an immigration status. My cousin married an American girl and now lives in Philadelphia. Quite a few Brits married Americans through TWI and now live there also.

Now that status applies to all US states. No individual state may determine its own immigration laws. So even if you have some states which accept gay marriages or civil partnerships and some which do not, there are still other implications that need to be resolved. International gay relationships have long been a problem all over the world. These are being resolved in countries which have allowed civil gay marriages but, failing a federal solution in the US is still going to lead to problems there.

As Lincoln said you cannot have a country that can work properly being half slave and half free. There are some things that have to have wider implications beyond the preferences of individual states.

Every so often things that have been in tension have to be resolved. It's not always a painless process because states may take different views.

In the nineteenth century is was slavery. In the 20th it was civil rights and possibly in the 21st century it is gay marriage and equal civil rights. This is not making an argument so much as stating a possibility based upon what has happened in the past.

We will have to see.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Linda Z]

Long Gone said: "You seem to have missed the point, Linda. An interest in social stability is an interest in the stability of society, not necessarily that of any particular societal structure."

It wouldn't be the first time I missed a point, but I'm trying hard to see your distinction, really I am.

If "traditional" families provide stability to society (and I agree that they do), but if same-sex marriages don't jeopardize those "traditional" families, how would they contribute to the instability of society? That's what I'm trying to get at.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand the point you (and laleo) have made about this, because I haven't grasped it yet.

Linda

[mj412]

it would be no different than a 14 year old girl marrying a much older male.

these cases often have to go to court and be heard by a outside party to be granted a license and not so many states even allow underage consent anymore.

the thing that bothers you is the young boy with older man image, and of course we assume parents LOVE their children. I am not talking about allowing abuse no one is.

if you do not think parents should have the right to sign off on underage children to marry it is a completly seperate issue that goes for girls and boy minors and nothing to do with sexuality.

abuse can happen in any marriage YET flourishes without it as well!

YOu think your going to stop sexual abuse by stopping homosexuals from being married?

If a parent had evil motives of somhow allowing their child to be abused as you claim is your fear they certainly would NOT be asking the STATE for a license to do so they would just do it and hopefully found guilty of child abuse .

You think with a over 50% divorce rate marriage fixes anything in our society? It doesnt. but what it does allow is for the laws and rights of the children to be protected and heard and that is my biggest reason to allow these families to be married. That and the spousal priviledges of social security and medical benefits, retirement etc.

Edited February 12, 2004 by Guest

[LG]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Z:

If "traditional" families provide stability to society (and I agree that they do), but if same-sex marriages don't jeopardize those "traditional" families, how would they contribute to the instability of society? That's what I'm trying to get at.

---

I've never suggested, nor do I think, that same-sex unions (whether marriages or not) contribute to the instability of society.

The question is this: Would legally formalized same-sex unions (whether called marriages or not) contribute to the stability of society in the same way and to the same extent as traditional marriages (successful ones). If someone were to convince me that they would, then I would support them. Otherwise, I just don't much care about them one way or another. I do care about, and oppose, one State being able to redefine a legal concept in such a way that it is binding upon other States and upon the United States, without the consent of the people of those other States and of the United States as a whole.

[This message was edited by Long Gone on February 11, 2004 at 22:13.]

Edited February 12, 2004 by Guest

[Trefor Heywood]

Something I found on the net which may be pertinent to the thread as concerning the Commonwealth of Massachussetts:

quote:

---

From The Boston Globe, February 8, 2004:

For Massachusetts, a Chance and a Choice.

By Peter J. Gomes, 2/8/2004

WHEN THE PILGRIMS landed at Plymouth in 1620, among the first things they did

for the well-ordering of their new commonwealth was to institute the Dutch

custom of civil marriage, with which they had become familiar during their long

sojourn in the Netherlands.

The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590; and the first

marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was

performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in

exercise of his office as magistrate.

There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph

Smith in 1629; but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as

these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as being

unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of

Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize

marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the

archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its

civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who

may perform such ceremonies.

This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the

current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial

ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of

Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the c ourt's

ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition,

rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been

since 1621.

Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of

them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of  consideration,

those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the

Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution.

No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they

do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church, or with its

blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and

ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and

state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and

civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these

distinctions.

It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme

Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the

church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting

marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was

no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the

constitution.

We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated

long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage,

the so-called "miscegenation" laws that obtained in many parts of this country

within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as

interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious.

Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and

that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners.

"Judicial tyranny" is a phrase usually heard from those whose prejudices have

not been sustained by a court's decision. Happily, the fundamental rights of

citizens in this Commonwealth and republic are in the long run defended against

another form of tyranny even more dangerous, the tyranny of the majority.

Legislatures more often than not are subject to the prevailing passions of any

majority that can muster sufficient votes; rarely are legislatures in the first

instance instruments of social change. It was, after all, legislators who,

reflecting the views of those who elected them, kept in place every oppressive law

on the books until challenged by aggrieved citizens who sought relief in the

courts.

If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action,

African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but

equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and p olitical

segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is

"judicial tyranny," let there be more of it.

In the forthcoming constitutional convention, the legislature will be

pressured to develop a politically expedient alternative to the clear and unambiguous

meaning of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. It will be a

stretch of rationality if it can do so. His excellency the governor is as

misguided in his efforts to find an agreeable alternative to the court's decision as

he is in seeking an error-proof justification for the reintroduction of capital

punishment into this commonwealth. Surely, he has other matters with which to

concern himself.

These legislative and executive maneuvers are not unlike those of such

southern Democrats as Harry Flood Byrd, George Corley Wallace, and Strom Thurmond,

who, after Brown v. Board of Education, which just 50 years ago mandated the

end of segreg ation in public schools, sought to use every political and

legislative means at their considerable disposal to nullify the meaning of the court's

unprecedented decision. Is there anyone, save for the most retro-racist, who

says now that Byrd, Wallace, and Thurmond were right and Earl Warren and his

court wrong?

William Sloane Coffin, former Yale chaplain, civil rights and antiwar

activist, in his most recent book defines hell as "truth seen too late."History

indicts those who in time of trouble and transition choose the past over the

future.

There are always conscientious people of deeply held religious conviction

who, alas, on the basis of those convictions find themselves on the wrong side of

history, such as those in our own Commonwealth who hanged witches in the 17th

century and embraced the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century; and those

who in our own time find the support of custom, reason, and faith in their

pre judices against Roman Catholics, Jews, and persons of other colors and

ethnicities.

This resistance to extending not special rights, but civil rights to

homosexuals in marriage is but the most recent instance of this dubious legacy, and is

not made any more palatable or respectable today by the support given to it

by visible and highly placed clergy across denominational lines, from whom we

have a right to expect better.

The way to the future is always paved by extending, not restricting,

liberties, especially to those who heretofore have been excluded. The health of a

republic may well be determined by its capacity to adapt itself to the extension

of its own privileges and responsibilities to those whom it would be easy by

custom and conviction to ignore.

John Adams's Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such document in the wor

ld, laid down the rational basis for a civil body politic whose capacious

hospitality has successively embraced people and views not contemplated by the foun

ders. The Great and General Court ought not to betray the fundamental

principles of our Commonwealth's constitution by promulgating amendments that will,

for the first time in our history, restrict rather than extend the rights and

liberties of all of our citizens. To do so will do nothing to restore the

difficult circumstances of modern marriage.

Divorce will not be halted, abuse will not be eliminated, frivolous

heterosexual liaisons such as the recent publicity stunt of Britney Spears will still

be lawful, and annulments will still be sought and obtained in the church

courts. Nothing will be done to save marriage, and yet in the name of doing so,

incalculable, retrogressive, and even punitive damage will be done to those of

our fellow citizens who under the civil law crave the legitimization of their

loving relationships.

The defense of marriage dem ands much more than legislative manipulation

enshrining the status quo. The defenders of traditional marriage argue that

marriage has been a heterosexual affair since "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and

at the same time they argue that this exclusively heterosexual institution is

in serious trouble.

Logic would suggest that such troubles as marriage experiences cannot be laid

at the door of those who have been, at least until Goodridge, rigorously

excluded from it.

To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor

complicate the problems already inherent in marriage, but what it will do is

permit a whole class of persons, our fellow citizens under the law heretofore

irrationally deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in

a valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all

the help it can get.

The Legislature has a choice, and a chance to do the right thing. In this

case, it is to do nothing. That shouldn't be so hard.

---------------------------------------------

Peter J. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey

Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. He is an American Baptist

minister.

---

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[mj412]

marriage in theory does stabilize by providing assets and merits by law. People living together do not get the same respect as a married couple does .

We honor marriage in America as an instution. we reward married people in general beyond single people .

we all think of thae "old maid" or that guy who still lives with his mom at forty as you know a little not right or strange or pitiful .

we like the idea of stable communities built by strong family units with ma pa buddy and sis .

before living together and babys daddy was popular the thought of sex before marriage was bad and shunned by the majority but it didnt stop it from happening , it may have forced some to think about what people would think and played a role in the decision to wait or not.

the same may be true of same sex marriages if we allow it to become common and legal some may be more the eager to entertain the idea is is acceptable by everyone as a good and ok situation.

In a sense it gives people a type of approval for something we as christians know is against Gods will, but so is living together and fornication and adultry yet our culture is taking ahold of these ideas regardless of what the majority or the christian people think.

I guess I could hope if I didnt allow same sex marriage to happen that it would stop homosexuality in some sense by not giving legal consent or approval. but a reality check proves it isnt in our hopes that people live.

people feel the same way about abortions yet if they wanted a abortion before they were legal they got them it was just more dangerous. it is the same way with homosexuals getting married a legal marriage may encourage some to consider getting married to the same sex but i do not believe it will cause or encourage them to become homosexual . and yes it will give the impression we as Americans think it is an ok thing when many do not.

but is that not true of much of America for many issues?

If it came to my vote i would vote NO , but not because I think a sixteen year boy will end up married to a forty year old guy as johnny fears but because I think homosexuality is wrong . I would fight the tide.

I would not approve of sin . but I do not condem siners as I also am one, a sinner not a homosexual.

I also think fornication and living together is wrong as well as adultry. stealing lying etc.

some good it does to impact how people are willing to live today.

but I would try by voting NO to same sex marriages.

I think of the people having to live in this life style , but it a choice as is living with someone and not getting married or having a baby out of wedlock is and it does carry heavy burdens.

I am going to freak some out here but I do not think they should have children but they will and do and I will do anything i can to support them in their efforts to supply a stable family unit. for the children. many are wonderful parents, as a christian I think it is an unnatural thing but so is the divorce rate we have with married people leaving a trail of broken homes and hearts with the children.

it isnt the day to live in a perfect world as God would have us live without such concerns and problems is it?

we can fight the tide of an ever corrupt world and I think we should yet I also think we need to be concerned and continue to put LOVING one another as our commandment from the Lord as He loved us.

the men at the last supper with Jesus Christ also wanted to know who was the better one and He said it was indeed the servant of the rest .

[This message was edited by mj412 on February 11, 2004 at 22:13.]

Edited February 12, 2004 by Guest

[outofdafog]

" Even if we don't like what they are doing, as long as they keep it to themselves it's their right to do so"

I am sorry but I have to chuckle at this. That is so condecending to the homosexual population. I have sat back and listened to this kind of "crap" for a couple of days now. Why does everyone think that homosexuals have an agenda? Did not black people have an agenda, before they were liberated?

No they just wanted their FREEDOM to be who they are. HOW will this affect you heterosexuals? WHAT ARE YOU REALLY AFRAID OF? Quit cloaking your fears in biblical scripture and just come right out and say what you are afraid of. You don't have to pussyfoot around.

You make it sound like homosexuals are a sub-culture. Which one of you would come forward if your child told you they were gay, and defend them. Talk about self-righteosness.

Hey there are alot of heterosexuals doing things that you guys don't seem to mind. And I know for a fact that men love to watch porn movies that have two females engaged in sex. So don't spout your self-righteousness to me.

outofdafog

That's my story and I am sticking to it. :D-->

outofdafog

outofdafog

That's my story and I am sticking to it :D-->

[outofdafog]

"All homosexuals have an agenda" and which of those agendas do you think a 14 year old has?

Since some of you conservatives have an equal agenda, why don't you just come in and say what your problem is instead of cloaking it with verses?

I rtold you earlier that I am able to withstand anything you throw at me because of my unconditional love for my child. Should we burn her in the fire pit or have the neighborhood just all come over and stone her?

If your beliefs are true, shy continue to justify them. Just come out and tell us your agenda?????

outofdafog

That's my story and I am sticking to it :D-->

[TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames]

quote:

---

Should we burn her in the fire pit or have the neighborhood just all come over and stone her?

---

Boy, Out, you have a fire pit big enough for a 14 year old?

Well, if you burned the kid in the fire pit, you would be depriving the whole neighborhood the joy of killing a 14 year old gay. (tongue firmly in cheek :D-->)

So, my vote would be for the stoning. :D-->

The lessons repeat until they are learned.

[This message was edited by TheManOfaThousandScreenNames on February 12, 2004 at 5:42.]

Edited February 12, 2004 by Guest

[Trefor Heywood]

MJ412:

quote:

---

I guess I could hope if I didnt allow same sex marriage to happen that it would stop homosexuality in some sense by not giving legal consent or approval. but a reality check proves it isnt in our hopes that people live.

---

And the point of civil rights is to deal with reality and not of theology. Is it not more moral to believe that if people are going to do something that you disapprove of that they are encouraged to do it more safely? Is it not better to encourage an ethos of relationships rather than just of sex? Is it not better to offer responsibility and commitment than to deny it? You acknowledge that you cannot stop people doing things they choose to do. Religious reasons and civil reasons can be different and it is the civil reasons we are thinking of.

You can offer heterosexual couples living together an alternative to "living in sin" and they can choose to take it or leave it. Gay couples do not have that choice and even if you still think it is a sin, you may be helping them to keep their level of "sin" down.

There are not many useful things that I remember from PFAL but I am reminded of the story that VPW related about the alcoholic who came to his church. He preached against it with all the strength he had and thought he had earned brownie points with God.

Did that help the alcoholic at all? Not at all, because the alcoholic knew far more about what it was like than VPW did. Gay people know far more about what it is like to be gay than heterosexuals do. They know what it is like to love, they know what it is like to be disapproved of and discriminated against. They know that what they ask for in civil terms will be a problem for many people with a religious faith, they know it is an uphill struggle.

But they know that their homosexuality is not going to go away, they know whom they love and wish to share their lives with. Christian ones will already have examined their faith and their homosexuality and have come to a different conclusion about it than others do. They do not ask for religious toleration but for civil toleration which does not require religious approval. There are many civil freedoms which go against one group or anothers view of the Bible. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges civil divorce, whilst at the same time reserving to itself the right to decide whether a marriage truly existed or not in the case of divorced persons wishing to be remarried in the Catholic Church. Mormons may not like tobacco or alcohol or tea or coffee and encourage abstinence from them but even in Utah they are not prohibited for sale.

Just a few items for thought.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[mj412]

yes trefor I do consider the world I live in and i agree with every bit of your post as far as "fairness" or equal choices given to homosexuals. and some companies do offer same sex medical leave and benefits .

I think as long gone stated before other avenues can be made for the welfare and concern for the children of these relationships. and that needs to be done by those who feel the passion to do it. as I stated before I do not think they should be allowed children but they have them and the issues need to be addressed .

but in the end Trefor I read from the bible that marriage is for a man and a woman only.. and I would vote as such .

civil business is as it is as Jesus says we must give unto it as it is but not to tangle into the lifestyle and choices that may be far removed from the christian wisdom we trust in. God is quite clear about what marriage means to Him. and I am going down with His ship.

by making marriage legal for homosexuals America is saying it is a foundation and value we uphold as right, and I personly do not agree and would vote with my conviction.

I am different than some who believe the agenda to make marriage legal for homosexuals is part of our moral decay and ruining the wholesome family values America was built on , homosexuals have no more or less to do with it than the number of folks who claim to have christian beliefs yet compromise on what the bible may say as truth in many many areas in our society.

It may be about simple civil freedom for some but for me it is also about being a person who claims to put God will first in my life. We as a people need to decide what is best for our country , and it often comes into a conflict with what we may believe in our spiritual life . The majority rules here Trefor.

I do not live as two seperate beings one who votes and one who prays Trefor, nor do I believe a homosexual should live a double life one of appearing straight and accepted and the other homosexual and fighting a battle within our laws.

we all should be true to what we believe is truth , and in America we have the right to do just that. I am not looking for brownie points with God , nor am I capable of fixing all of the world ills and problems and struggles. Jesus Christ rescues our souls. In the same voice I would never ask you to stop being what you feel you need to be as a homosexual how can you ask me to stop being what I need to be as a christian? Being a christian is a struggle , it always has been we fight an unending tide of civil groups who claim injustice in a very unGodly world.

christians do not run America America decides what is right and wrong about its laws, Jesus says to give to it what we must , but it is a temporary life outside of our eternal glory in the kingdom with Him. We all stand approved before God not men.

Edited February 12, 2004 by Guest

[outofdafog]

Man of a thousand names -

yea but if we burn her at the stake we can have marshmallows and rejoice, that another debil spirit has bit the dust.

Thats my story and I am sticking to it :D-->

Is it just me, or do other people have a problem with the term "homo"? It always made me uncomfortable in TWI when everyone referred to them as such. I always felt it was so demeaning and of course if you have ever heard LCM speak about it, they just made it ten times worse.

[J0nny Ling0]

How about "sodomite"? Or "queer"? We can call them queers freely now ya know. There is a queer show called "Queer As Folk" on Showtime, and also a show called "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy". So even though it used to be considered sort of a "racial epithet" to call a gay person a queer, now it's ok because they call themselves that. Oh, yeah, there is also a gay rights group called Queer Nation, and one of the gay slogans is "We're here and we're queer".

So, "queer" is ok now, right?

Edited February 12, 2004 by Guest

[Rocky]

Hey, even Grace Adler calls Will and Jack homos. (Will and Grace)

[jezusfreaky]

***sigh***

Again I say, to all of the ''holier-than-thouses'', who's gonna throw the first stone? Is their sin any greater than yours/mine? I don't agree with their choice of lifestyle, but who am I/we to judge them? Last time I checked, the was God's job. Selah.

Love y'all,

-Colleen

GO VOLS!!

''...show a little faith, there's magic in the night, you ain't a beauty, but hey, you're alright, oh, and that's alright with me...''

-Bruce Springsteen