GBLTI Marriage - What's the worst that could happen?

[joey_downunder]

I think a lot of people seem to be missing the point about 'rights'. Legalising gay marriage is not a human rights issue......
These rules surrounding marriage do not discriminate against people, they discriminate against behaviour, which is what all laws do. The reason we have these rules surrounding marriage is because adult/child, incestual, polygamous and homosexual marriages do not benefit society. Only the natural marriage that God designed can be considered foundation of society.

You deserve points for that observation.

 

[TheDag]

Then that wouldn't be a very good church would it?

yet this is the church we have in the world. be aware that when I say church here and in my previous post i do not mean an individual local church but the christian church as a whole.

One can easily promote anti greed legislation. It is done all the time through limitations. Even my local grocery store puts a limit on items I can buy at a sale price.

the only limitation put on greed often is not doing anything illegal. you can do stuff that is morally quentionable but not illegal and that is fine according to society. there is no limit on greed in many areas. take the Sydney olympics for example. A number of businesses put the price up on products to take advantage of big crowds passing by who would buy stuff. or why do different shops charge different prices for things that cost the same? Greed. Yet we accept that. I have never heard a complaint about that.

I simply asked why the church was not making as much noise about greed as it does about homosexuality. your response seemed to dismiss greed as a problem. hence my saying you seem o think greed is not a bad thing.

Light automatically makes darkness... retreat. Salt takes a food and makes it taste different. If your witness of Jesus does not make darkness retreat or food taste different... that isn't a witness of Jesus.

and for that to happen one does not need to force religious beliefs on others.
So in your example of pedophiles and thieves it is not forcing religious views on people as society in general agrees with those laws. Thats the difference.

Correct. How is that different from what I said?

Voting for or against a law is active. Not doing anything is passive.

it is different because your original statement was not allowing a law to be passed is passive. The phrase not allowing implies action taken therefore is not passive.

As for voting for laws...pick your reps wisely.

agreed. Of course one can only choose from the options presented.

Huh?

This passage is not talking about sexuality.
This passage is talking about all things.

How is sexuality not a part of "all things".

Sorry for not making it clearer or for misunderstandingwhat you wrote. You seemed to be taking that passage to mean only sexuality not all things.

And no Jesus did not sin. Because He was not from the world, but from the Father. His flesh was not fallen like ours. He didn't have lustful, self centered flesh. His desires were Godly.

So you agree that lusting is not sinful in and of itself. The bible tells us that Jesus lusted. In Luke 22:15 where Jesus earnestly desired to share passover with his disciples the word used there is the very same word translated as lust. So one can conclude lusting itself is not a sin but rather the subject of our lust that is the problem. if I lust (earnestly desire) God that is not a sin.

The whole point is, that no matter whatever you lust after, you will do it in an ungodly way. So one must live by God's word in order to make a slave of our bodies (1 Cor 9:27).

disagree with you here. of course that may come down to you thinking lusting is wrong in and of itself which is not how I understand it as you can see from my point above.

 

[TheDag]

These rules surrounding marriage do not discriminate against people, they discriminate against behaviour, which is what all laws do. The reason we have these rules surrounding marriage is because adult/child, incestual, polygamous and homosexual marriages do not benefit society. Only the natural marriage that God designed can be considered foundation of society.

How would a incestual marriage not benefit society? unless you are advocating aborting any child born with a disability. Same with polgamy. It can benefit society as well. So can homosexual marriages. With the adult/child that is certainly different as consent is required. When can a child give consent? Varies and the laws (in some places) do allow for that to a degree.

 

[PopcornAmy]

How would a incestual marriage not benefit society? unless you are advocating aborting any child born with a disability. Same with polgamy. It can benefit society as well. So can homosexual marriages. With the adult/child that is certainly different as consent is required. When can a child give consent? Varies and the laws (in some places) do allow for that to a degree.

Well, looking at marriage as the foundation of society, its purpose is to be procreating partnership where the next generation is raised in the best environment to be able to repeat the process and so on and so on. This is why it is legally endorsed, because happy and functioning marriages equal a happy and functioning - not to mention continuing - society.

If all marriages were incestual, there would be a huge increase in genetic disorders, birth defects, etc. I suppose it is quite possible man kind would cease to exist. This is not beneficial.

The population of the world is roughly 50/50 male-female. If all marriages were polygamous (say each man had three wives) obviously there would be a huge number of unattached males. This is not beneficial.

An adult/child marriage... well, obviously it is not beneficial to have half the population pedophiles and the rest sufferers of childhood sexual abuse.

And homosexual marriages? Before long there would be no society at all.

 

[Bubblies]

And homosexual marriages? Before long there would be no society at all.

That's assuming everyone decided to marry someone of the same sex. That wouldn't happen.

 

[3rdHeaven]

If Julia Gillard was to legalise marriage for GBLTI people (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual and Intersexed for those who don't know) in Australia, what's the worst thing that could happen to our country?

Nothing! Let them marry, give them what they want. It's none of our business to judge or condemn them.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and religion moves slower regarding such matters but eventually catches up. Take for example inter-racial marriage which was condemned for centuries.

This issue will be buried in the history books eventually and I can even see a day when most religions understand that this is a civil rights issue regardless of what your personal feelings are. Laws are based in civil rights, so this is a losing battle. Fear not, your country will survive

 

[PopcornAmy]

That's assuming everyone decided to marry someone of the same sex. That wouldn't happen.

No it wouldn't, but I am trying to make the point that homosexual marriage is not as beneficial as hetrosexual marriage, therefore it does not deserve equal status.

 

[3rdHeaven]

No it wouldn't, but I am trying to make the point that homosexual marriage is not as beneficial as hetrosexual marriage, therefore it does not deserve equal status.

This argument is weak.

Applying this logic of beneficial, then the mentally challenged should not marry, couples that can not have children should not marry, if you want to get technical, sinners should not get married. There would be no one who could get married then

Also if you apply revenue to the beneficial argument, the economy stands to benefit greatly from gay marriage, so it could be argued it is beneficial.

This nation is governed by the constitution, not the Bible. Every one is guaranteed equal rights under the laws. Marriage is simply a legal issue. Churches do not have to marry gays or recognize it as right or moral, not required to at all, they are protected under the right to practice their own religion.

This really is a losing battle. It's all about equal rights nothing more.

 

[Born to Watch]

This nation is governed by the constitution Hmmmmm, let me see? Oh you are a Yank, and from what I last heard the US constitution was being eroded

Alexander: "The Checks and Balances in Our Constitution Are Being Eroded" Under This Administration - YouTube


Marriage is system Instigated by God, between Him a man and a woman, a covenant.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Genesis 2:24

 

[Bubblies]

That's assuming everyone decided to marry someone of the same sex. That wouldn't happen.

Then neither is a marriage between two infertile people. Should we require people to take tests to see how likely they are to produce children before they're allowed to marry?

As 3rdHeaven said, economically speaking, same-sex marriage would be great. Especially for the tuxedo industry.

 

[PopcornAmy]

This argument is weak.

Applying this logic of beneficial, then the mentally challenged should not marry, couples that can not have children should not marry, if you want to get technical, sinners should not get married. There would be no one who could get married then

I am referring to male-female natural marriage as being beneficial in general. Of course there are marriages that do not produce children but that is the exception not the rule. Marriage is fundamentally about children.

Also if you apply revenue to the beneficial argument, the economy stands to benefit greatly from gay marriage, so it could be argued it is beneficial.

How so? I would argue that homosexual marriage would strain the economy due to increased healthcare costs.

This nation is governed by the constitution, not the Bible. Every one is guaranteed equal rights under the laws. Marriage is simply a legal issue. Churches do not have to marry gays or recognize it as right or moral, not required to at all, they are protected under the right to practice their own religion.

Yes, I agree that marriage is a legal issue. I haven't mentioned anything about religion. And as I said in an earlier post, same-sex marriage is not a human rights issue. People who engage in homosexual behaviour can get married to any person that fits the criteria set out by the law. We all go by the same rules, regardless of our sexual desires. Why do you think marriage is a legal issue? Do you think the government is involved in marriage because they care about how much love you have for your spouse? No they don't, they care about how your relationship is going to affect society. So that is why they endorse the male/female relationship, because it is the only relationship that can be beneficial.

 

[TheDag]

Well, looking at marriage as the foundation of society, its purpose is to be procreating partnership where the next generation is raised in the best environment to be able to repeat the process and so on and so on. This is why it is legally endorsed, because happy and functioning marriages equal a happy and functioning - not to mention continuing - society.

I disagree that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Also remember what God said. he said it is not good for man to be alone so he created Eve. Nothing there about creating Eve and children. It is just reading far too much into the bible to say that is what marriage is about.
As for being raised in the best enviroment being married does not guarantee that. i'm not going to provide numerous links to stories of parents killing their children as i think many won't appreciate it. A quick search on google news will provide so many results. if we expand that further and look at serious injuries caused by a parent. There was another news story the other night about a parent putting a childin a washing machine or clothes dryer. Studies when looked closely at show that a child is best raised by two parents. The studies do not in any way indicate that should be biological parents. Gay couples are just as good.

i also don't believe you have the right to force that pain on people. The pain of having a child who will die. I know people who in their family history not one male baby has survived past a certain age. i don't think you should be forcingthem to have a baby. If your not forcing them then your whole claim of procreating being the point of marriage goes out the window.

If all marriages were incestual, there would be a huge increase in genetic disorders, birth defects, etc. I suppose it is quite possible man kind would cease to exist. This is not beneficial.

Well you can make all kinds of claims based on if all marriages were that way. However lets actually be realistic. it would not be all marriages. So once again the question is how would a incestuos marriage not be beneficial. What ifthey never had kids? That removes the whole birth defects argument. in any case birth defects are not a legitimate argument as there is a chance of birth defects with every single birth.

The population of the world is roughly 50/50 male-female. If all marriages were polygamous (say each man had three wives) obviously there would be a huge number of unattached males. This is not beneficial.

We have huge numbers of unattached males now so does that mean we should scrap the marriage system as it stands. Obviously it is not beneficial. or perhaps we should force people into marriage. With a little bit of thought sorry this argument does not stand up. Another thing to consider is if being single is such a bad thing why is there a spiritual gift of celibacy? Doesn't really make sense if none of us are supposed to be single.

An adult/child marriage... well, obviously it is not beneficial to have half the population pedophiles and the rest sufferers of childhood sexual abuse.

Adult/child relationship does not automatically mean pedophillia. Are you really arguingthat a 19 year old who marries a 17 year old is a pedophile? Really?? Sorry gotta disagree with you there. Consent must be given by various other people for this including a court order allowing it. As I said earlier it can be just as beneficial as other marriages but the more important concern is when are they capable of giving consent. In biblical times people married as teenagers generally when they hit puberty. So generally around 14 years of age.

And homosexual marriages? Before long there would be no society at all.

once again this is if all marriages were gay marriages. Once again lets be realistic and acknowledge that if gay marriages were allowed not all marriages would be gay marriages. or are you suggesting that if gay marriages were legalised you would instantly and uncontrolably turn gay? Somehow i don't think so.

If however you are arguing that it is simply because they can't give birth to kids without outside assistance then you also condemn alot of marriages without realising it many of which are hetrosexual marriages. So i really don't think you have thought this through. Perhaps you can define how something is beneficial to society. I personally think you have a poor definition of that as well but it might help explain your views at least. See i can make a good argument for why it is beneficial to society to have some single people.

How so? I would argue that homosexual marriage would strain the economy due to increased healthcare costs.

Care to explain this. With benefits given to couples then surely any marriage is a strain on the economy. What health care costs would there be that they aren't already entitled to?

 

[PopcornAmy]

TheDag,

I am not going to quote and reply to every comment you have made because I'm sure we could go round and round in circles. You are missing the point with a lot of my comments. Yes, there are plenty of male/female marriages that do not provide a good environment for children to be raised in. But male/female marriage is the only relationship that has the capability to be beneficial. Is every single one of them good? No, but is any single one of other relationship as beneficial as a good male/female marriage? No!
To say that we should allow gay marriage because there are straight parents who put their children in washing machines it not a good argument. The same studies that you refer to also show how important it is for a child to have a mother and father. I don't see how you can deny that this is the ideal way for a child to be raised.

Yes - I am making claims on what the world would be like if all marriages were x or y, to prove a point as to why the government does not endorse them,
The fact is - natural marriage is the only kind of marriage where, if all marriages were male/female, then there would be no negative consequences on society.
You can argue about the definitions of a child/adult relationship all you like but it is completely missing the mark, and I'm not condemning non-childproducing male/female marriages. At all. Again let me clarify my point:
A male/female marriage is the only marriage that can provide the best possible environment for the next generation to be raised in. This is why it is endorsed by the government. Homosexual marriage does not provide the same benefits.
The same-sex marriage debate is not about marriage. Less than 2% of homosexuals marry where it is legal. It is about getting the government and society to endorse their behaviour. I don't want to endorse harmful & non-beneficial behaviour.

 

[DesertScroll]

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and religion moves slower regarding such matters but eventually catches up. Take for example inter-racial marriage which was condemned for centuries.

Christians point back towards truth in order to point forward.

"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to thew saints." Jude 1:3

This issue will be buried in the history books eventually and I can even see a day when most religions understand that this is a civil rights issue regardless of what your personal feelings are. Laws are based in civil rights, so this is a losing battle. Fear not, your country will survive

We know what progress will bring and has brung (2 Tim 3:1-5).

This argument is weak.

Applying this logic of beneficial, then the mentally challenged should not marry, couples that can not have children should not marry, if you want to get technical, sinners should not get married. There would be no one who could get married then

Also if you apply revenue to the beneficial argument, the economy stands to benefit greatly from gay marriage, so it could be argued it is beneficial.

This nation is governed by the constitution, not the Bible. Every one is guaranteed equal rights under the laws. Marriage is simply a legal issue. Churches do not have to marry gays or recognize it as right or moral, not required to at all, they are protected under the right to practice their own religion.

This really is a losing battle. It's all about equal rights nothing more.

Disregarding beneficial relationships as I can make lying beneficial to a situation, your idea of equal rights is flawed.

The poster you are responding to says they have equal rights... and they do. They can do anything another person can do.


What they can't do is have everything they want to do. That isn't equal rights, that is making equal behaviors.

We tax behaviors we do not like, we put restrictions on beaviors we do not like, and we even ban behaviors we do not like. None of these violates equal rights, because they are taxed for all, restricted for all, and banned for all.

Not allowing someone to practice a behavior and not having a government recognize or not promote a behavior does not violate equal rights.

What homosexual rights advocates want is a new right. They have all the old ones.

 

[DesertScroll]

yet this is the church we have in the world. be aware that when I say church here and in my previous post i do not mean an individual local church but the christian church as a whole.

First, nice. Some things are getting whittled away.

There are churches who do teach about all sins. Therefore you can't be speaking about the whole. I would suggest finding a different church. Not all who claim to be a Christian church are a Christian church (Matt 7:21-23).

the only limitation put on greed often is not doing anything illegal. you can do stuff that is morally quentionable but not illegal and that is fine according to society. there is no limit on greed in many areas. take the Sydney olympics for example. A number of businesses put the price up on products to take advantage of big crowds passing by who would buy stuff. or why do different shops charge different prices for things that cost the same? Greed. Yet we accept that. I have never heard a complaint about that.

I simply asked why the church was not making as much noise about greed as it does about homosexuality. your response seemed to dismiss greed as a problem. hence my saying you seem o think greed is not a bad thing.

Nope. All sin comes from self centeredness, a type of greed. All sin is also a lie as something is good or evil in relation to God.

Speaking out against homosexuality is speaking out against greed (following selfish desires of the flesh instead of God's creation). And speaking out against homosexuality is speaking out against lies (homosexuality embraces the corruption of creation, instead of God's creation).

But all types of greed are a problem and are sin. You won't find me arguing against that.

and for that to happen one does not need to force religious beliefs on others.
So in your example of pedophiles and thieves it is not forcing religious views on people as society in general agrees with those laws. Thats the difference.

In the case of a democracy I stand for truth. Whether or not anyone else stands for that is irrelevant.

The standard for truth is not if society agrees with it or not. If society accepted pedophiles would you stop speaking out against it? Your methodology for what to stand for seems flawed. It should be scripture, no matter what political institution you live in.

it is different because your original statement was not allowing a law to be passed is passive. The phrase not allowing implies action taken therefore is not passive.

Heh, no...

Watch.

This is what you wrote in the post I was responding to:

I personally think it is too much of a stretch to interpret Mat 18:7 the way you have. I think it is talking more about actively encouraging a person to sin. Simply allowing a law to be passed is not doing that in my opinion.

To which the first part of my response applies to:

Well your not allowing a law to be passed, that would be passive.

Not allowing a law to be passed being passive is in the sense of your phrase "simply allowing a law to be passed is not doing so in my opinion".

So my phrase was not stating voting against a law was passive. But rather, your phrase of not doing anything, but letting. As I thought/think you think it is fine to actively vote for gay marriage. See where the confusion started?

As I said in my last post, voting against a law is active. And if it is against truth (what scripture says) we are to vote against it and vote for reps who are also against it. Or we will watch what God is doing in the world and not vote in Caesar's realm. But you still proclaim truth, even if you don't vote.

Sorry for not making it clearer or for misunderstandingwhat you wrote. You seemed to be taking that passage to mean only sexuality not all things.


So you agree that lusting is not sinful in and of itself. The bible tells us that Jesus lusted. In Luke 22:15 where Jesus earnestly desired to share passover with his disciples the word used there is the very same word translated as lust. So one can conclude lusting itself is not a sin but rather the subject of our lust that is the problem. if I lust (earnestly desire) God that is not a sin.

Heh, no. We don't agree.

Jesus was made like us in all things (Heb 2:17). The only thing His humanity did not share with us was/is sin (Heb 4:15). Take this example:

"For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death." 2 Cor 7:10

Jesus lust/desire doesn't come from the world's flesh, but God's. It is the same difference between before Eve stopped living by God's word and after when she looked at the tree with the serpent's words in mind. The tree didn't even look good for her to eat until she listened to the serpent (Gen 3:6). It would have never occurred to her to eat it, because she did not desire it. But after stopping living by God's word, it was desireable and so she ate.

Jesus sees the world by living by God's word (Matt 4:4) we have to beat our bodies into submission by fighting it with God's word (1 Cor 9:27 Rom 8:13). My desires and emotions cause me to be guilty of sin, even if I do not act upon them (Matt 5:21-28). Jesus' emotions and desires do not.

disagree with you here. of course that may come down to you thinking lusting is wrong in and of itself which is not how I understand it as you can see from my point above.

See above, plus see these verses (John 3:6 6:63 Rom 7:18-22 8:10,13 1 Cor 9:27 Gal 5:17,18 6:8 1 John 2:15,16). It is literally impossible for the flesh descended from the world to do good.

We have to rely on Jesus for any righteousness (Php 3:9).

 

[TheDag]

First, nice. Some things are getting whittled away.

There are churches who do teach about all sins. Therefore you can't be speaking about the whole. I would suggest finding a different church. Not all who claim to be a Christian church are a Christian church (Matt 7:21-23).

i have no problem with the teaching at my church. it was not my church I was talking about. point is the church spends most of its effort and time making public statements against homosexuality. how often do we hear public statements against greed? I don't remember one christian group making public statements against John Howard when he told the lie about the children overboard. Considering so many christians actively promoted voting for howard because he was putting forth ideas that were closer to christian teachings than others were for the most part I beleive they have a responsibility to call him on it when he told lies. however next election christians were happy to vote for him despite proof being there that he had lied. So why such a big focus on one sin rather than other sins that are much more prevalent and frankly cause bigger problems?

Nope. All sin comes from self centeredness, a type of greed. All sin is also a lie as something is good or evil in relation to God.

Speaking out against homosexuality is speaking out against greed (following selfish desires of the flesh instead of God's creation). And speaking out against homosexuality is speaking out against lies (homosexuality embraces the corruption of creation, instead of God's creation).

But all types of greed are a problem and are sin. You won't find me arguing against that.

Except you were arguing that we do have laws against greed. i was just trying to point out there are plenty of situations where greed is perfectly acceptable as far as the law goes.
Did you watch Seinfield when it was on? Remember the last episode where they all get arrested for breaking the good samaritan law by failing to help someone in need. Well in Australia you don't have to help. you can be selfish about it. you can watch a person drown and do nothing about it and that is not illegal. So being selfish is written into our laws.

In the case of a democracy I stand for truth. Whether or not anyone else stands for that is irrelevant.

The standard for truth is not if society agrees with it or not. If society accepted pedophiles would you stop speaking out against it? Your methodology for what to stand for seems flawed. It should be scripture, no matter what political institution you live in.

i have no problem with people standing for truth. That is different to forcing a belief on a person.

Heh, no. We don't agree.

Well if we don't agree then you must believe that Jesus sinned. The bible made it very clear that Jesus lusted. So if you disagree with me then you believe lusting is a sin and since Jesus lusted he sinned and could not therefore be a suitable sacrifice. There is no way around that if you do not agree.

as for the whole active/passive thing i don't think we are understanding each other so I'm going to drop it.

 

[TheDag]

TheDag,

I am not going to quote and reply to every comment you have made because I'm sure we could go round and round in circles.

ok just answer this one thing though if you don't mind. Define beneficial and why you have that definition. See I think your definition is flawed. i have already provided good evidence that it should not be measured by the possibility of having children.

A comment on the studies saying a mother and father is best. Any studies I have come across that conclude that I have found to be flawed as in the studies they do not define a couple as a mother and father but rather just two people. it is only in the conclusion that they bring in biological mother and father. This is drawing a false conclusion.

 

[3rdHeaven]

The bottom line is regardless what religion or yours or mine opinions regarding same sex marriage is or is not. Regardless what definition you want to assign marriage. This is a legal issue. Just as blacks obtaining rights to vote, sit any where on the bus, and use any drinking fountain for the public. What we are seeing now with gay marriage is a lot like what we seen with the civil rights movement for blacks. This nation regardless of what some may feel, was not built upon any bible or religion. Indeed it was written to assure *everyone* not just males, or whites, or Christians, but EVERYONE was entitled to the same civil rights set forth under the constitution. There can be no distinction between Jew or Gentile, male or female, black or white, gay or straight. Liberty is totally blind to all of that. We can argue why we think or feel gay marriage is wrong and should be banned, and that is fine, we have that right. However at the end of the day, liberty and justice for ALL without exception will prevail.

This really is a lost battle. It takes a bigger heart to put aside differences and treat every one equal. What side of history will you be on? I hope not the same side that also felt slavery was biblical and therefore OK. We have been through all this with womans rights, and blacks rights, and now gay rights.

IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU OR I FEEL OR THINK IS RIGHT!

IT'S ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS RIGHT!

And if I may remind you, as Christians we are to respect the laws put forth by government because there is no Government in place with out the Will of God.

Gays do not have the same equal rights as we do if they can not marry who they want! This is a civil rights issue as agreed by most people no matter what position they may personally hold.

time to move on!

 

[Blessedj01]

What we are seeing now with gay marriage is a lot like what we seen with the civil rights movement for blacks.

I can understand some of your sentiment about the law of the land kind of being different from what Christians think is the moral ideal, but that's not really a fair comparison at all.

Gays do not have the same equal rights as we do if they can not marry who they want!

Also disagree with this. It's not that they don't have the same rights to marry - they do. They can marry any member of the opposite sex.

The difference here is what defines marriage. That's what "gays" want to change and that's a different debate from what constitutes an equal right.

Also while I know you want to tie this in with "minority" interests in the past it is not entirely accurate to do so. When all is said and done, it's different to be denied the will to redefine marriage on your own terms than it is to say, block someone from working or voting, or segregating people to certain parts of town, or hanging people for their skin color. It's different.

With all due respect as society continues to advance towards the ideal of universal self-entitlement I expect you will begin to abandon your comparison. At some point, society has to have a baseline standard for what behavior constitutes an acceptable norm. As society continues to spin out of control, you can expect it to get worse and worse.

Under Roman rule, people were crucified for trivialities. Hundreds at a time sometimes. They put God on trial at night and tried him with false witnesses and pronounced him guilty even though he was innocent. Expect repeats of that in our history. Expect to see that not everything is about entitlement. We are a corrupt people who will continually seek more and more for ourselves until the line between civil rights and civil demands becomes blurred.

This world is headed for a few shocks.

 

[Born to Watch]

Gays do not have the same equal rights as we do if they can not marry who they want! This is a civil rights issue as agreed by most people no matter what position they may personally hold.

time to move on!

They do have equal rights, this is not dominionist, its Christianity.
Marriage is between man woman and God, homosexuals are welcome to partake in a civil ceremony and good luck to thyem but by definition they cant be "married"
Marriage is husband and wife, not whatever anybody wants.
Two men ot two women do not qualify for the term marriage. It doesnt work like that.
Can I have a Degree in any subject I want? No, because I havnt qualified.
Can anyone be a Christian, No, one must qualify to be a Christian.

qual·i·fy/ˈkwäləˌfī/
Verb:
Be entitled to a particular benefit or privilege by fulfilling a necessary condition: "we qualify for compensation".
Become eligible for a competition or its final rounds, by reaching a certain standard or defeating a competitor.

Marriage is man and woman, homosexuals dont qualify.

They can call it a Dualty or a Duelridge or whatever, its not marriage.
Its like calling a dog a bus stop.Its the wrong term.