Wow, a lot has happened on this thread since last night! All right, down to business...
faithfulone1219 said:
im not for gay marriage. marriage is suppose to be between a man and a women. not man man or women women. i just see it as a betray to the naturality of reproducing.
It's only "supposed to be" that way according to a specific set of cultural mores, which are not universally held.
faithfulone1219 said:
and seeing that so many gay couples want to get married in states that dont allow them to might be violating their rights? why is it a violation to their rights? i dont understand. they do have the right to be together. dont get me wrong. if they want to be together, fine you know. but the right to marry? i think thats just a little over the top.
How is it "over the top" for a pair of romantically-committed consenting adults to want a legal union that grants them so many important legal guarantees, just like so many heterosexual couples have?
faithfulone1219 said:
i mean, as man and women, i see them, us, as puzzle pieces in the natural world of reproducing and in God's world as well. men and women fit because we both need each to reproduce, but if its women and women and man and man, we just have 2 pairs of people who are incapable of reproducing to carry on the human race. thats just the way i think.
What bearing does any of that have on how we should determine secular law?
MyHeart07 said:
However, as a Christian I can't help but care deeply for these individuals and feel great sadness. God will deal with them in His own time.
I love them as I love everyone deeply. Jesus came to this world to save us because He loves us so much!
I'm confused. If you "care deeply for these individuals," why wouldn't you want them to be able to legally solemnize their unions, guaranteeing their rights to emergency hospital visitation, power-of-attorney, and so many other issues that heterosexual married couples take for granted? Can you imagine how a gay person feels when his partner has a car accident and is rushed to the hospital in critical condition, but the hospital personnel refuse to let him visit because he "isn't family," though they would have gotten married years ago had the state allowed it? THAT brings me great sadness.
faithfulone1219 said:
i never said the human race had a problem with reproducing. what i was saying is that it doesnt go with God's natural plan. God never made a women and women or man and man to get married for no apparent reason. yes, there is love between them, im not saying they shouldnt be together in anyform. but for marriage, i think its going too far.
I still don't understand how it's "too far." What people think God wants has no bearing on the laws of the United States.
faithfulone1219 said:
and about marriage between whites and blacks, that wasnt a good example for that. being a different color doesnt have any measure to gay marriage. the gay marriage thing is between a women and women or man and man. same sex.
It's very much the same thing. Decades ago, it was thought to be "unnatural" for people of different races to intermarry. Many even said that it was "against what God wanted."
faithfulone1219 said:
and i dont see why it should be ok to marry the same sex now when like 50 or more years ago it wasnt even thought about.
The idea, "Why should X be okay now, when 50 years ago it wasn't even thought about," just doesn't work. Why should it be okay to allow women to vote in the 1920s, when fifty or so years prior, nobody was talking about suffrage? Progress happens. Inequality endures for a long time, and then someone realizes there's something wrong with it. People talk, the idea spreads, and social change occurs.
faithfulone1219 said:
ok i see where you are coming from. but no matter what, to me, its not right. you see marriage as you described it as a legal contract. meaning of nothing but words saying this or that agreeing to whatever it may be agreeing to. to me marriage is something God created. for a man and women to be united together as one body. and i go with what the bible says about marriage, not what today's society is trying to do with it.
There are two types of "marriage." There's legal marriage, for which you have to go down to city hall and get a license, and which affects your taxes, etc. Then there's religious marriage, which is recognized by the church or synagogue or your religious institution of choice. These are often conflated in our society, as priests and ministers are granted legal authority to solemnize legal marriages, which take place simultaneously with the religious ceremonies. A religious marriage is up to a religious group to define and determine. A legal, civil marriage, however, is defined and determined by the government, without regard for religious beliefs.
Tigg said:
A question to any that feels like answering. Where is the line drawn? If marriage is extended to same sex, then does the slippery slope apply and slide us all down the poligamy (sp?) right? Or what about NAMBLA I think it is. The man-boy org. that see's nothing wrong with exactly that? Does then marriage become OK to anyone or thing one wants? These few I mention can use the same argument that one does for gay marriage, I believe. Is there a line or not? And if so, what should it be if not what is already in place? TYIA.
The line I draw is "consenting adults." If you cannot legally give consent to enter a contractual relationship, then you cannot marry. It might also be reasonable to draw the line at multiple-partnerships (marriages involving more than two people) for reasons of legal logistics, but I honestly haven't decided yet--there are decent arguments for either side.
ChristianCenturion said:
One such secular reason would be that the citizens don't wish to include that model in their government's recognition. It would be a secular reason that varies by government and the citizens' values/morality.
The personal preference of the majority is not sufficient reason to deny anyone equality under law--at least, not in a Constitutional Republic.