Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Farnhamia]

No. Like it or not Marriage is a religious not governmental issue. The Government actually has no right to even issue a liscense for people to marry, but thats an even bigger issue. The answer is no. Now Gays could be provided the same tax breaks, health insurance etc as married people but not the actual title. There is a liberal (progressive) agenda behind the gay rights movement which wants to destroy the fabric of this country and has had some success. How else would an issue that actually matters to so few people become the issue it is.

You claim to say "marriage is a religious issue" and then support a policy which denies religions issues regarding marriage. Knews for you, some religions are in FAVOR of Same-Sex-Marriage, like the UUA. You're basically attempting to enshrine YOUR religion into the civil law, and then use it to persecute other religions. You personify the concept of un-American.

And I always wonder at accusations of "destroying the fabric of this country." Why would anyone want to do that? Seriously, what possible gain is there in ... I'm not even sure what "destroying the fabric of this country" means. Maybe someone can explain that to me. Are we talking about people who want to see wholesale destruction so they can carve out little empires and rule them with maniacal ruthlessness in a post-apocalyptic landscape? I don't get it.

[Unchecked Expansion]

And I always wonder at accusations of "destroying the fabric of this country." Why would anyone want to do that? Seriously, what possible gain is there in ... I'm not even sure what "destroying the fabric of this country" means. Maybe someone can explain that to me. Are we talking about people who want to see wholesale destruction so they can carve out little empires and rule them with maniacal ruthlessness in a post-apocalyptic landscape? I don't get it.

No, it's a literal phrase. Gays go around tearing up bed sheets and torching haberdasheries.
The problem with a 'gays hate America' argument is that they obviously don't, else they would migrate to a country allowing them to get married to who they want. They must love America, and are willing to work to change things to how they should be, reflecting the ideals that are one of the good things about America. So gay rights is protecting the fabric of America, while religious bigots getting their opinion made law are the ones betraying it

[Farnhamia]

And I always wonder at accusations of "destroying the fabric of this country." Why would anyone want to do that? Seriously, what possible gain is there in ... I'm not even sure what "destroying the fabric of this country" means. Maybe someone can explain that to me. Are we talking about people who want to see wholesale destruction so they can carve out little empires and rule them with maniacal ruthlessness in a post-apocalyptic landscape? I don't get it.

No, it's a literal phrase. Gays go around tearing up bed sheets and torching haberdasheries.
The problem with a 'gays hate America' argument is that they obviously don't, else they would migrate to a country allowing them to get married to who they want. They must love America, and are willing to work to change things to how they should be, reflecting the ideals that are one of the good things about America. So gay rights is protecting the fabric of America, while religious bigots getting their opinion made law are the ones betraying it

My cat must be a lesbian like me, then, because she loves tearing at the upholstery, though I can't say I've felt any great compulsion to do so. And yeah, I agree on the rest of it. People have asked us why we don't go get married somewhere it's allowed and we say we'd like to have the state we live in - and we do like living here, all things considered - recognize us as full citizens. So we stay, we work and we hope.

[Desperate Measures]

Farnhamia: Take solace in the fact that progress is inevitable.

[Farnhamia]

Farnhamia: Take solace in the fact that progress is inevitable.

I do.

[Desperate Measures]

Farnhamia: Take solace in the fact that progress is inevitable.

I do.

[Sierra Systems]

Forget the government's ability to establish marriages/ grant marriage liscences at all. Leave "marriage" to the Church.


A friend of mine had an idea that he called Cooperative Living Contracts.

The CLC could be between any 2,3, or 4 people, regardless of sex.

They'd get all the benefits of being married, and could even still have rings.
Anyone involved in a CLC would have to live with the people they're contracted to, so it's not like you could just sign up and then do your own thing. The relationships wouldn't have to be romantic, though.

That way, everyone can still have the benefits of a marriage without a fight between the Uber-Christians and the...well, everyone who supports gay rights. (I'm Christian myself, but...in no way a "Bible Banger.")
If a same-sex couple does want to get MARRIED married? Well, it'd just have to be left at the discretion of the church. Right?

I don't really remember all the details of the CLC, but I know it was more thorough when my friend conceived it. (It's totally not my idea; I just really liked it.)

I tell you what. You work to literally destroy marriage, the rest of us will work to extend it to more people.

I'm not sure I see the problem here... The fundies can't holler about same sex marriage if nobody is getting "married", and it takes marriage back to where it belongs as a religious ceremony, and as mentioned elsewhere, if a church doesn't like you, they can already tell you to get bent about the ceremony. The license is all that matters, making the CLC a perfectly valid replacement for marriage. I'd vote in favor of it. Another thing I like is that it gives people who are poly the same rights. Why aren't we arguing in favor of poly rights? Aren't they just as important as same sex marriage rights?

[Lerica (Ancient)]

Logically, any Christian arguing against same-sex marriage should also be arguing in favor of polygamous marriage.

[Sierra Systems]

Logically, any Christian arguing against same-sex marriage should also be arguing in favor of polygamous marriage.

It did happen in the bible a time or two... I seem to remember somebody marrying a pair of sisters...

[Farnhamia]

Forget the government's ability to establish marriages/ grant marriage liscences at all. Leave "marriage" to the Church.


A friend of mine had an idea that he called Cooperative Living Contracts.

The CLC could be between any 2,3, or 4 people, regardless of sex.

They'd get all the benefits of being married, and could even still have rings.
Anyone involved in a CLC would have to live with the people they're contracted to, so it's not like you could just sign up and then do your own thing. The relationships wouldn't have to be romantic, though.

That way, everyone can still have the benefits of a marriage without a fight between the Uber-Christians and the...well, everyone who supports gay rights. (I'm Christian myself, but...in no way a "Bible Banger.")
If a same-sex couple does want to get MARRIED married? Well, it'd just have to be left at the discretion of the church. Right?

I don't really remember all the details of the CLC, but I know it was more thorough when my friend conceived it. (It's totally not my idea; I just really liked it.)

I tell you what. You work to literally destroy marriage, the rest of us will work to extend it to more people.

I'm not sure I see the problem here... The fundies can't holler about same sex marriage if nobody is getting "married", and it takes marriage back to where it belongs as a religious ceremony, and as mentioned elsewhere, if a church doesn't like you, they can already tell you to get bent about the ceremony. The license is all that matters, making the CLC a perfectly valid replacement for marriage. I'd vote in favor of it. Another thing I like is that it gives people who are poly the same rights. Why aren't we arguing in favor of poly rights? Aren't they just as important as same sex marriage rights?

Marriage doesn't belong to religion. As I pointed out, all marriage in the US is civil. No religious ceremony is required. So how about the religious folks butt out? I have no problem with them refusing to marry anyone they want. There's no need to use any term other than "marriage." As you said, the licnse is all that matters, and that's true now. The trouble is, some people want to lock down the definition of marriage to suit their own sensibilities.

[Treznor]

I'm not sure I see the problem here... The fundies can't holler about same sex marriage if nobody is getting "married", and it takes marriage back to where it belongs as a religious ceremony, and as mentioned elsewhere, if a church doesn't like you, they can already tell you to get bent about the ceremony. The license is all that matters, making the CLC a perfectly valid replacement for marriage. I'd vote in favor of it. Another thing I like is that it gives people who are poly the same rights. Why aren't we arguing in favor of poly rights? Aren't they just as important as same sex marriage rights?

Because it doesn't belong in a religious ceremony, it's more of a cultural artifact than a religious one. For example, the New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled that hospitals can legally deny visitation rights to homosexual civil union couples because, in their opinion, the state law does not make civil union on par with marriage. Unless civil unions can be regarded as fully equal to marriage in all aspects -- legally, economically and culturally -- they are not "separate but equal."

Poly rights is a completely separate can of worms. I agree the limitations of "one man to one woman" is ridiculous both for the gender and quantity modifiers, but it's still a separate fight. We're not ready to join that battle yet.

[Britain and Eireann]

No. Marriage is between a man and a women.

Thats not the wayi was tought it, 2 People in Love is the way i was tought.

[Dempublicents1]

I'm not sure I see the problem here... The fundies can't holler about same sex marriage if nobody is getting "married", and it takes marriage back to where it belongs as a religious ceremony, and as mentioned elsewhere, if a church doesn't like you, they can already tell you to get bent about the ceremony. The license is all that matters, making the CLC a perfectly valid replacement for marriage. I'd vote in favor of it. Another thing I like is that it gives people who are poly the same rights. Why aren't we arguing in favor of poly rights? Aren't they just as important as same sex marriage rights?

Recognizing poly marriage is actually another legal issue altogether. Marriage law is specifically written for two people, and many of the protections couldn't simply be expanded to more people - they would have to be altered. Personally, I'm of the opinion that people should be able to get the legal protections they need for whatever living situation they choose to engage in. Thus, if government recognition of poly marriage can be shown to be necessary (and I think this is likely), it should be created. However, I think there would be significant differences between the best legal structure for poly marriages and that for a marriage between only two people. Much of that boils down to the fact that there would be significantly more variability in such arrangements, which would necessitate a greater amount of flexibility in the legal structure and more decisions at the outset necessary on the part of the participants.

[Ameright]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

Genesis 19: 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If us a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:12 And he put away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he he exterminated from the land.

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were in the house of Jehovah, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah.

Isaiah 3: 9The appearance of their faces witnessed against them, And their sin, as Sodom, they declared, They have not hidden! Wo to their soul, For they have done to themselves evil.

Romans 1: 26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;
27 and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.
28 And according as they did not think good to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind to practise unseemly things;

Romans 1: 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful. 32 Although they know full well God's just sentence—that those who practice such things deserve to die —they not only do them, but even applaud others who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6: 9 Don't you know that evil people will not receive God's kingdom? Don't be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts. 10 Neither will thieves or those who always want more and more. Neither will those who are often drunk or tell lies or cheat. People who live like that will not receive God's kingdom.

1 Timothy 1:8 We know that the law is good when anyone uses it in the right way.
9 He must understand that the law was not made for the man who lives right. It was made for those who do not want any laws over them, and for those who will not obey. It was made for those who do not respect God, and those who are bad people. It was made for those who do not respect anything that is holy or belongs to God. It was made for those who beat their fathers or mothers, and for those who kill people.
10 It was made for those who use sex in the wrong way and for men who have sex with other men. It was made for those who steal people, for those who tell lies, for those who make a promise that is not true, and for any other thing that is not right.
11 The wonderful good news of God teaches what is right. Praise him! And he has trusted me to tell this good news.

Jude 1: 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8 In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

[Dyakovo]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

[Setebuhza]

Forget the government's ability to establish marriages/ grant marriage liscences at all. Leave "marriage" to the Church.


A friend of mine had an idea that he called Cooperative Living Contracts.

The CLC could be between any 2,3, or 4 people, regardless of sex.

They'd get all the benefits of being married, and could even still have rings.
Anyone involved in a CLC would have to live with the people they're contracted to, so it's not like you could just sign up and then do your own thing. The relationships wouldn't have to be romantic, though.

That way, everyone can still have the benefits of a marriage without a fight between the Uber-Christians and the...well, everyone who supports gay rights. (I'm Christian myself, but...in no way a "Bible Banger.")
If a same-sex couple does want to get MARRIED married? Well, it'd just have to be left at the discretion of the church. Right?

I don't really remember all the details of the CLC, but I know it was more thorough when my friend conceived it. (It's totally not my idea; I just really liked it.)

I tell you what. You work to literally destroy marriage, the rest of us will work to extend it to more people.

I'm not sure I see the problem here... The fundies can't holler about same sex marriage if nobody is getting "married", and it takes marriage back to where it belongs as a religious ceremony, and as mentioned elsewhere, if a church doesn't like you, they can already tell you to get bent about the ceremony. The license is all that matters, making the CLC a perfectly valid replacement for marriage. I'd vote in favor of it. Another thing I like is that it gives people who are poly the same rights. Why aren't we arguing in favor of poly rights? Aren't they just as important as same sex marriage rights?

My point is more that your policy, while intellectually sound, makes for bad politics. Your campaign will unarguably be about destroying marriage. That's not a winner.

[Treznor]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

That we point fingers and laugh.

[Dyakovo]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

That we point fingers and laugh.

Ah, so business as usual then...
OK, carry on...

[Lerica (Ancient)]

Logically, any Christian arguing against same-sex marriage should also be arguing in favor of polygamous marriage.

It did happen in the bible a time or two... I seem to remember somebody marrying a pair of sisters...

Oh, it happened far more than a time or two. Consider that not ONCE in the entire Bible does it ever forbid polygamous marriage (well, for men anyway, not women) but it is practiced by some of the holiest prophets in the Bible, people called "Heroes of the Faith" in the New Testament. Also, men had the right to buy women as slaves to be their "concubines".

Genesis 4:19 - Lamech is the first of a long line of biblical men with more than one wife.

Genesis 16:1-4 - Sarai is the first of a long line of barren women who were desperate for children. (In the Bible, it is the women who are barren, never the men.) She sends Abram into her slave, Hagar, so that she can "obtain children by her." Abram gladly complies.

Genesis 25:6 - But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....

Genesis 26:34 - Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Genesis 28:9 - Esau, who already had two wives (26:34), "takes" another.

Genesis 31:17 - Jacob had four wives (or two wives and two concubines -- this distinction is not clear in the Bible): Rachel, Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah. There is no indication that God disapproves of this arrangement.

Genesis 32:22 - Jacob has two wives and two concubines, continuing the biblical tradition of polygamy.

Exodus 21:10 - God's rules for "taking another wife.

Deuteronomy 21:15 Rules for those who have two wives: "one beloved, and another hated," and how to treat your hated children.

Judges 8:30 - Gideon had 70 sons (no one knows how many daughters) "for he had many wives."

1 Samuel 1:1-2 - Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

2 Samuel 12:7-8 - God gave the wives of king Saul to David.

1 Kings 11:2-3 - Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.

1 Chronicles 4:6 - Ashur had two wives, continuing the long line of biblical polygamists.

2 Chronicles 11:21 - Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

2 Chronicles 13:21 - (In the eyes of God, a man's status is determined by the number of wives that he possesses.)

2 Chronicles 24:3 - Jehoiada took for him two wives....

Matthew 25:1 - Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to ten virgins who went to meet their bridegroom.

1 Timothy 3:2 - Apparently, it's OK for laymen to have several.

Titus 1:6-7 - A bishop should have only one wife. I guess it's OK for laymen to have several.

[Ameright]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

According to the Bible, those who do not follow it should also be killed

2 John 1:9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.


2 Corinthians 14-18Don't become partners with those who reject God. How can you make a partnership out of right and wrong? That's not partnership; that's war. Is light best friends with dark? Does Christ go strolling with the Devil? Do trust and mistrust hold hands? Who would think of setting up pagan idols in God's holy Temple? But that is exactly what we are, each of us a temple in whom God lives. God himself put it this way:
"I'll live in them, move into them;
I'll be their God and they'll be my people.
So leave the corruption and compromise;
leave it for good," says God.
"Don't link up with those who will pollute you.
I want you all for myself.
I'll be a Father to you;
you'll be sons and daughters to me."
The Word of the Master, God.

Deuteronomy 13: 6If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own life entices you secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods--gods you have not known, you nor your fathers,
7Of the gods of the peoples who are round about you, near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other--
8You shall not give consent to him or listen to him; nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him.
9But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people.
10And you shall stone him to death with stones, because he has tried to draw you away from the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

2 Chronicles 15:13 They agreed that anyone who refused to seek the Lord, the God of Israel, would be put to death—whether young or old, man or woman.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[Dyakovo]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

According to the Bible, those who do not follow it should also be killed

Hmmm, thanks...
Now I have free rein to kill all christians (in self-defense of course).

[The Alma Mater]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

According to the Bible, those who do not follow it should also be killed

And yet they call it the Book of Love

[The Alma Mater]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

According to the Bible, those who do not follow it should also be killed

Hmmm, thanks...
Now I have free rein to kill all christians (in self-defense of course).

You already had that.
Remember: Christians side with the God of Abraham. Who declared war on humanity and killed almost all of it with a big flood.
Killing collaborators is perfectly fine

[Treznor]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

According to the Bible, those who do not follow it should also be killed

And yet they call it the Book of Love

God loves YOU because you bought his book. He doesn't love that cheapskate over there, so kill him for God.

It explains a lot about the Crusades, as well as the Inquisition.

[Farnhamia]

Personally, I think if you follow the Bible, you should not only be against same-sex marriage, you should support criminalizing gay acts, those found guilty receiving the death penalty.

And that means what to those of us who do not follow the bible?

According to the Bible, those who do not follow it should also be killed

And yet they call it the Book of Love

God loves YOU because you bought his book. He doesn't love that cheapskate over there, so kill him for God.

It explains a lot about the Crusades, as well as the Inquisition.

It's a little-known fact that the Emperor Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II was for help against Seljuk encroachment on Byzantine paperback rights to various religious works, including the Bible. What Alexius wanted was legal help in suing the Sultan but the translation of his letter got screwed up and he ended up getting an army instead.