To all of those who think...

In GOD's eyes such behavior is not beneficial to society at large. It is a selfish act that accomplishes nothing within the confines of homosexuality. That "couple" is entitled to nothing but to be left alone...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. - Bernard Shaw

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

I will go on the streets and protest right next to you if we are talking about more liberal visitation policies at hospitals that would allow gays to visit their lovers.

But if you are talking about changing an ancient and important tradition of our society because you want to be able to easily visit your lover in the hospital... You have your priorities wrong.

Protest what should be protested. Don't change definitions on us.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. - Bernard Shaw

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government.

Hey Curious, I will say this:

I am such a traditionalist on marriage that I think if I were to ever get a divorce I really would feel too depressed and would not want to re-marry. I would consider it adultery for me to sleep with a woman after I had married and been divorced unless it was int he circumstance of her having an affair on me, which is the only grounds for legitimate divorce that Christ outlined.

I am a traditionalist and I just do not think divorce is really OK, either, but it should be legal because I think I cannot force myv iews of marriage on others.

But more than that:

I support this idea -- all official marriages become civil unions, and marriage should not be a word used in government.

Although marriage has changed greatly over the years the standard of Christian marriage was the same amongst Christian peoples until recently, and it was simple:

One man, one woman; exclusive to one another in their sexuality; divorce only on the grounds of having an affair. But I would support divorce for someone who beats up their spouse, of course. It cannot be expected that a man or woman stay in an unsafe environment.

And that is my views and my religious take and it's personal so I do not extend the expectation to others.

If our government does not want to continue with a generally OK definition of marriage I would prefer for them to forfeit it.

I live in South Korea and intend to stay here for the rest of my life so it is not that large of an issue,but if I were in the US I would perhaps even prefer to have a Common Law wife as opposed to a legal one as a general protest of my own against the society as a whole.

And you know what, gays should be allowed not only visitation rights but they should be allowed every single civic right that is reserved exclusively to couples; they should have programs to get insurance and tax breaks and the likes just as much as us because the government should draw no lines in recognition of citizens.

It would be nice if, as a political tool, heterosexuals did not marry until gays could enter a civil union and be given the same rights. Politically, I support all equality for all gays.

It is merely on moral issues I do nto feel that in my religious views they can be married and I would prefer that the government does not usurp a Judeo-Christian tradition and extend it to gays. However, I also do not appreciate that they deprive productive, good citizens of rights for the same reason.

The solution: No marriage before the government's eyes. Only before God's.

jmverville:

While I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the notion of religion (in general, or Christianity in particular, since members of other faiths marry as well, and have done for a very long time) having a monopoly on the word "marriage" -- as an atheist, I will one day have a completely nonreligious nuptial ceremony, and will still consider myself married -- I respect where you're coming from, and agree that there should be clearer lines drawn between "legal marriage" and "religious marriage." That way, there would be less impulse for some folks to interfere with anyone's legal rights, or feel that their religious identity is being threatened.

JM,

See how nice these people seem to be. They'll never harm us. Right? No, of course not.

Click over to the gay bishop thread and see.

And in any case, same-gender couples get all of the benefits you desire from civil union. No need to hijack the word "marriage" for acceptance purposes.