Should we allow gay marriage.

[Armistead]

Obvious there are many debates on this, but with an election year I wonder if any opinions have changed.

I'm still riding the rail. Why it's a mute issue for me and I have no use for it, I still am concerned with the constitutional aspects of it.

Even if my faith or beliefs are against it, should I have the right in America
to force my beliefs on others?

The other aspect is I don't thing gay marriage would ruin traditional marriage. However, I also am concerned with the pushing of the gay agenda in our schools, ect..Like my son in the fourth grade was read a book in school why little Jimmy had two fathers. Schools are not a place
to force the gay agenda.

However, most are now supporting civil unions...sort of like Marriage Lite.
I think that's stupid. That's people playing with words to make them feel better. We should get rid of civil unions or allow gay marriage and stop playing with words.

From a Christian perspective, even if you do not agree with it, would it not be better to promote monogamy through marriage. Many children are denied benefits because of lack of gay marriage. Is it wrong to punish them? Even if you are the most radical, would this be a lessor of two evils?

Gays are not going away. Because we may not like or accept the behavior, doesn't stop them from living in relationships. Even without marriage, nothing changes as we view how they live. We have a gay couple in our hood, two women with 3 children. They are not married due to law, but in every aspect they live that way. Not giving them a piece of paper doesn't change anything. As we view this lifestyle, nothing about marriage would change what we now see.

My concern is they are robbed of many constitutional rights for being gay.
These are rights all Americans should have.

Again, I am against this behavior. However, I accept we do not live in a theocracy and I can't force my views on them, so it becomes a legal issue. I think all should view this as a legal issue and deal with it such.

There are problems though..if we don't define marriage, that could lead to many things...If people are free to marry in any way, what about 5 men, 3 women and 1 man, ect...two couples, ect.. Should we define marriage as a relationship between two people only, if so, would that be against peoples right to choose as they please. One problem with gay marriage, is
all want to jump on it legally, polygamist, ect...

 

[HuntingMan]

Im completely against gay unions of any sort. I believe they are abomination of the natural order that God created.
I dont believe in 'gay bashing', nor do I believe that we are going to stop or even slow the current path humanity is on.
We can try to work with individual gays to try to win them to Christ and teach them the truth, but we are NOT called or permitted to judge them or treat them poorly.

If they are proclaimed believers then they need to lay aside the sexual sin or we have little choice but to expel them from the assembly, but those who are unbelievers in the world are Gods alone to judge.

I wrote to you in the letter not to associate intimately with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you must go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother and is either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat. For what is it to me to also judge those who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But God judges those who are outside. Therefore put out from you the evil one.
(1Co 5:9-13 MKJV)

 

[Texas Lynn]

Well, can anyone come up with a good reason not to?

 

[Dogbean]

Well, can anyone come up with a good reason not to?

Yes...how about this one.....

GOD SAID IT'S WRONG!!!!!!!!

<Staff Edit>
When are you going to stop denying God's Word as truth?
I know gays are not going to go away. Gay marriage won't directly affect me because I'm not gay. But I cannot in good conscience vote for anything that promotes such open and widespread sin.

 

[joyinhislife]

You know, I think that gay unions are wrong too. For a number of reasons, but mainly because God said 'no' and it must hurt His Great Heart to see this.
The legal viewpoint is important, of course. Children need to be taken care of. I am not downplaying this, but God said NO for a reason. He didn't want the spread of AIDS and people dying from it. He didn't want children being left orphans.
I don't like the gay-bashing either. I'm not for the gay agenda, but to me it's a little extreme to be slamming someone over it ............this would not testify to the Love of Jesus Christ. Better to win someone into heaven God's way!!!!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I am completely and totally against homosexuals being 'married' under the sacrament of holy matrimony in the church. I believe it is wrong, and I believe it is antithetical to the entire idea of holy matrimony. The very word matrimony comes from the Greek &#956;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961; (mater), meaning 'mother' or 'motherhood.' The idea of the sacrament is that a man and a woman are joined together to glorify the woman's role in the creation of new life.

That said, I also am completely against the federal government making marriage law, entirely. Congress only has the power to make laws inasmuch as those laws relate to the enumerated powers given to Congress under Article I of the Constitution. And where, praytell, under Article I is Congress given the power to make marriage law? Simple answer- they aren't.

Congress has only been making federal marriage law (to any real extent, anyway) since the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws, ie, laws prevent the marriage of people from different races and ethnicities (whites and blacks, in particular), were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that when the states made such laws, they were violating the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.

Now I support the Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, but, but, since that time, Congress has felt it has carte blanche to make marriage law. But, of course, it simply doesn't.

Therefore, in my personal (but legally reasoned) opinion, the federal government should not regard people as married or unmarried, and has no purposes registering their sexual relationships. In essence, the government, under this wholly constitutional scheme, would understand a man and a man living together the same domestic relationship whether they are roommates or sexual partners, and that's that. Then if they are partners and want to be "married," they can go to an Episcopal Church instead of a Baptist one- no government interference whatsoever.

 

[Texas Lynn]

He didn't want the spread of AIDS and people dying from it. He didn't want children being left orphans.

Much as I hesitate to criticize your post because you seem to be a decent person this point is actually a point in favor of same gender marriage just as preventing syphillis is a point in favor of heterosexual marriage.

 

[joyinhislife]

Well, I don't know about the 'decent person' comment. Thank you for that. I made the comments that I did, knowing that someone was probably going to take exception to what I said. I do not agree with your perspective about my comments, but this is because we are two different people. I know what I meant by them. God bless you, Texas.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Well, I don't know about the 'decent person' comment. Thank you for that. I made the comments that I did, knowing that someone was probably going to take exception to what I said. I do not agree with your perspective about my comments, but this is because we are two different people. I know what I meant by them. God bless you, Texas.

So how do you figure that supports your position then?

 

[Inviolable]

Well, can anyone come up with a good reason not to?

Yeah. Homosexuality is abnormal. How abnormal you ask?
A lot.

 

[Tavita]

I am completely and totally against homosexuals being 'married' under the sacrament of holy matrimony in the church. I believe it is wrong, and I believe it is antithetical to the entire idea of holy matrimony. The very word matrimony comes from the Greek &#956;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961; (mater), meaning 'mother' or 'motherhood.' The idea of the sacrament is that a man and a woman are joined together to glorify the woman's role in the creation of new life.

That said, I also am completely against the federal government making marriage law, entirely. Congress only has the power to make laws inasmuch as those laws relate to the enumerated powers given to Congress under Article I of the Constitution. And where, praytell, under Article I is Congress given the power to make marriage law? Simple answer- they aren't.

Congress has only been making federal marriage law (to any real extent, anyway) since the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws, ie, laws prevent the marriage of people from different races and ethnicities (whites and blacks, in particular), were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that when the states made such laws, they were violating the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.

Now I support the Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, but, but, since that time, Congress has felt it has carte blanche to make marriage law. But, of course, it simply doesn't.

Therefore, in my personal (but legally reasoned) opinion, the federal government should not regard people as married or unmarried, and has no purposes registering their sexual relationships. In essence, the government, under this wholly constitutional scheme, would understand a man and a man living together the same domestic relationship whether they are roommates or sexual partners, and that's that. Then if they are partners and want to be "married," they can go to an Episcopal Church instead of a Baptist one- no government interference whatsoever.

I think this is the only well answered post in here (besides the OP)..

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yeah. Homosexuality is abnormal. How abnormal you ask?
A lot.

Left-handedness is abnormal. Should the left-handed be prohibited from marrying?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Well, can anyone come up with a good reason not to?

Well…no

 

[BigBadWlf]

You know, I think that gay unions are wrong too. For a number of reasons, but mainly because God said 'no' and it must hurt His Great Heart to see this.
The legal viewpoint is important, of course. Children need to be taken care of. I am not downplaying this, but God said NO for a reason.

And racists claim that God says racial equality is wrong. Does this make the civil rights act or interracial marriage wrong?


Should you not also be opposed to non-Christians having the right to marry?
Or are you applying this only to some minorities?

He didn't want the spread of AIDS and people dying from it. He didn't want children being left orphans.

You do realize that the vast majority of people with HIV/AIDS are heterosexuals don’t you?

I'm not for the gay agenda,

What exactly is this “gay agenda”?

 

[Inviolable]

Left-handedness is abnormal. Should the left-handed be prohibited from marrying?

No but a grown adult should be able to do two things.
One, come up with an original argument and two, be able to distinguish between the radical differences of being left handed and being gay.

 

[Jase]

What exactly is this “gay agenda”?

I was just about to post the same question. Is "gay agenda" some subtle way that ignorant Christians insult those with different sexual orientations, so as not to seem so hateful?

 

[Jase]

two, be able to distinguish between the radical differences of being left handed and being gay.

Um, you can't distinguish the difference, so why should Texas Lynn have to? In fact, there is no difference. Both are inborn traits.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think this is the only well answered post in here (besides the OP)..

Why thank you.

 

[Inviolable]

Um, you can't distinguish the difference, so why should Texas Lynn have to? In fact, there is no difference. Both are inborn traits.

Heh. You just said inborn traits.
Murderers and alcoholics are supposed inborn traits as well and I say there's one heck of a difference between someone who's left handed and a murderer.
Unless you think all left handed people are homosexual?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Heh. You just said inborn traits.
Murderers and alcoholics are supposed inborn traits as well and I say there's one heck of a difference between someone who's left handed and a murderer.
Unless you think all left handed people are homosexual?

They are. It's true.