New poll shows 61% of Americans support same sex marriage

TerranceL said:

Not really surprised.

This nation is going to hell in a handbasket!

Click to expand...

With all the evil this nation did in the past. And people think gay marriage will finally send this nation to hell . I know your joking, but I bet plenty of people believe it.

smaneck said:

Because that is the reason people get married, they want to commit themselves to a monogamous relationship.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of married heterosexual people fail this badly.

RileyG said:

I think, in my lifetime, it will just be a fad that will disappear. Eventually I think America will wake up and realize just how damaging the LGBT lifestyle truly is. I have seen countless gay men run from partner to partner never finding any peace or happiness all in the name of "love". I stand by everything I said. I will not be silenced.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is as old as mankind. That's a strange kind of 'fad'.

As far as the OT goes, we are in the new Covenant with Jesus Christ. Officially, Christians recognize marriage as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman.

Click to expand...

So sacred that divorce is as high as 50% in Christian marriages, and inappropriate content addiction is rife in Christian pastors?

I still firmly believe children should not be deprived of their biological right....two men and two women cannot naturally make a baby...and natural marriage is best for society.

Click to expand...

Ah, so what about adoption? What about infertile couples? Many Christian couples cannot naturally make a baby either.

RileyG said:

I think, in my lifetime, it will just be a fad that will disappear. Eventually I think America will wake up and realize just how damaging the LGBT lifestyle truly is. I have seen countless gay men run from partner to partner never finding any peace or happiness all in the name of "love". I stand by everything I said. I will not be silenced.

Click to expand...

I have seen numerous gay men settle down happily with a single partner for many, many years. Just because some people are promiscuous and stupid, we are to tack that on ALL gay individuals?

Denny Crane said:

If they want civil partnerships or humanist weddings etc then that's fine, but it shouldn't force churches in to it.

Click to expand...

Force churches into it???

When and where did that ever happen?
Who even suggested that would happen?

Denny Crane said:

If they want civil partnerships or humanist weddings etc then that's fine, but it shouldn't force churches in to it.

Click to expand...

Good thing that's not happening then.

AirPo said:

Force churches into it???

When and where did that ever happen?
Who even suggested that would happen?

Click to expand...

Not saying it is, just saying that's where I personally would take fault.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

With all the evil this nation did in the past. And people think gay marriage will finally send this nation to hell . I know your joking, but I bet plenty of people believe it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding...

Denny Crane said:

Not saying it is, just saying that's where I personally would take fault.

Click to expand...

Well, considering that churches are still allowed to be racist and sexist in their dealings without any civil consequences, there's little worry that they'd be forced to accept homosexuals.

Tammy said:

I really appreciate your conviction, Riley...and I will be there standing with you! It amazes me, that on a Christian forum, that not EVERYONE is standing with you. God bless you!

Click to expand...

It amazes me, that on a Christian forum, that there is such a lack of Christian love and charity in this thread and in other threads on this board. I was being sarcastic, of course, because it doesn't amaze me at all, considering the experiences I have had with many people who professed to follow Jesus and his teachings during my 24 years in the church. Anyway, perhaps it has gone unnoticed by some, but non-Christians (though heathen as we may be - sarcasm) are welcome here and this particular forum is open to us. If there are Christians who don't want to associate themselves with us, then there are specific forums on this board that only Christians can post in, otherwise, some of them may just have to grin and bear it if they want to post where non-Christians are also present.

Hetta said:

So sacred that divorce is as high as 50% in Christian marriages, and inappropriate content addiction is rife in Christian pastors?

Click to expand...

So much for the sacredness of traditional marriage. I know many Christians who are divorced and remarried, some three or four times actually.

TLK Valentine said:

Well, considering that churches are still allowed to be racist and sexist in their dealings without any civil consequences, there's little worry that they'd be forced to accept homosexuals.

Click to expand...

White male dominance, white supremacy, and white privilege...

And how many of them would say, "God bless America!" before they would pull the white sheet over their head?!

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

I know a lot of married heterosexual people fail this badly.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the act of the commitment helps, whether hetero or homosexual.

Sketcher said:

OK, so since heterosexual men have marriage open to them, why do so many of them fail to be monogamous? Even among those of them that do marry?

Click to expand...

I don't think we'd even have that 30% be monogamous without marriage. It may not eliminate promiscuity but I think it does lessen it.

Jesus explicitly stated that the reason for his position on divorce was due to the nature of a sacred covenant between one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4-6).

Click to expand...

The word "one" is not to be found in that passage. Jesus is quoting Genesis yet the Patriarchs in Genesis are polygamous and no condemnation is attached to their behavior in this regard.

smaneck said:

I don't think we'd even have that 30% be monogamous without marriage. It may not eliminate promiscuity but I think it does lessen it.

Click to expand...

But why? Those who do not marry, it can be argued, simply don't want the commitment. Those who do what the commitment will get married anyway.

smaneck said:

The word "one" is not to be found in that passage. Jesus is quoting Genesis yet the Patriarchs in Genesis are polygamous and no condemnation is attached to their behavior in this regard.

Click to expand...

Was there a third man or woman that Jesus forgot about when he quoted it or that Moses forgot about when he wrote or told the story in Genesis?

Sketcher said:

But why? Those who do not marry, it can be argued, simply don't want the commitment. Those who do what the commitment will get married anyway.

Click to expand...

So why not legalize gay marriages in that case? To not do so is to encourage promiscuity in the gay community.

Was there a third man or woman that Jesus forgot about when he quoted it or that Moses forgot about when he wrote or told the story in Genesis?

Click to expand...

Presumably monogamy was the rule even when Genesis was written. Men and women come out about equal, after all. In any case, we do know that both the Patriarchs and the kings were polygamous and nowhere in the Bible is their behavior condemned for that reason.
But by the way, there is no evidence that Moses wrote Genesis. It is a tradition of men, nothing else.

smaneck said:

So why not legalize gay marriages in that case? To not do so is to encourage promiscuity in the gay community.

Click to expand...

Can they not have a commitment without legal recognition? My point with my last statement is that heterosexual men don't really try to have a permanent, life-long commitment outside of marriage. Those who get married generally do. They get the legal recognition because they're making that commitment. The marriage license is a sign of the commitment that they made. Why do gay men need that particular sign when lesbians apparently don't?

smaneck said:

Presumably monogamy was the rule even when Genesis was written. Men and women come out about equal, after all. In any case, we do know that both the Patriarchs and the kings were polygamous and nowhere in the Bible is their behavior condemned for that reason.

Click to expand...

So there was compromise later on due to hardness of heart, but it was not so from the beginning. I believe this too.

smaneck said:

But by the way, there is no evidence that Moses wrote Genesis. It is a tradition of men, nothing else.

Click to expand...

A very old tradition, and no better explanation exists.

Sketcher said:

Can they not have a commitment without legal recognition? My point with my last statement is that heterosexual men don't really try to have a permanent, life-long commitment outside of marriage. Those who get married generally do. They get the legal recognition because they're making that commitment. The marriage license is a sign of the commitment that they made. Why do gay men need that particular sign when lesbians apparently don't?

Click to expand...

What a lame argument. Broad brushes much? Plenty of gay men have life long commitments in monogamous relationships. Plenty of heterosexual men don't.

Your argument is all the more reason why everyone should be able to get marriage, to have legal recognition of their commitment and all of the societal benefits that go with it. There's no litmus test for heteros who get married, why should gays have the same burden? Or at the very least, why should that be an objection to them getting married?

blueapplepaste said:

What a lame argument. Broad brushes much? Plenty of gay men have life long commitments in monogamous relationships. Plenty of heterosexual men don't.

Your argument is all the more reason why everyone should be able to get marriage, to have legal recognition of their commitment and all of the societal benefits that go with it. There's no litmus test for heteros who get married, why should gays have the same burden? Or at the very least, why should that be an objection to them getting married?

Click to expand...

She wasn't arguing that. She seemed to be arguing that the presence or absence of legal recognition by itself somehow makes people more or less likely to be monogomous. Which is bull. I was just using the "facts" she was bringing to the table to counter her point.

Majority opinion is of no concern to me, and certainly is not an indication of truth.