Is it fair..?

[gengwall]

And no one (that I know of) is demanding that religious establishments and their holy men marry or bless same sex unions.

Yes - I agree. I didn't mean to imply they were.

 

[Argent]

Have you not been reading?

Yes, and don't believe everything I read except the Bible.

The "system" of marriage is continually changing, so of course it has been challenged. It was challenged not half a century ago in America when people of different races wanted to marry.

Race is not a choice nor a sin. Homosexual sex acts are a choice and a sin.

And homosexual marriage is not a new thing.
http://www.answers.com/topic/same-sex-marriage?method=8#wp-History_of_same-sex_unions

This is a completely biased, pro "homosexual marriage" essay, with examples, most of which are speculation.

There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There never has been (the above cited article provides no proof) and there never will be. Marriage is one man and one woman. Period.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

I find it interesting that you would cite an article that mentions pederasty as an example of gay unions.

Hay.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There never has been (the above cited article provides no proof) and there never will be. Marriage is one man and one woman. Period.

Fix your HTML.

For quoting something you do this:

<quote> text text text </quote>

Except replace < > with [ ].

 

[Argent]

They are very similar.

Race is not a choice, nor a sin. Homosexual sex acts are a choice and a sin.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Yes - I agree. I didn't mean to imply they were.

Yeah, I know. That's why I put teh thumbs up smiley. I was agreeing with you.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Race is not a choice, nor a sin. Homosexual sex acts are a choice and a sin.

The struggle for equal rights for homosexuals to marry is very similar to the struggle for people of different races to marry. That's what I'm talking about. I don't know what you're going on about.

 

[Argent]

And no one (that I know of) is demanding that religious establishments and their holy men marry or bless same sex unions.

No you're not. You are asking that the whole of society endorse and institutionalize unnatural sex acts.

 

[gengwall]

There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There never has been (the above cited article provides no proof) and there never will be. Marriage is one man and one woman. Period.

And the sky is purple Listen, homosexual marriage is a reality whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Not only is it a civil reality in many parts of the world and MA, (which some think is a foreign country anyway), but it is even a religious reality as there are many clergy who will perform homosexual marriages.

Now I agree it will never be a fundimentalist Christian reality (or likely a Jewish or Muslim reality), but that is only one context to apply to the word "marriage".

 

[Spinrad]

They are very similar.

Maybe in a sense. But what IS similar is how society reacts to them. That's the key, that ought to be the focus, in my opinion. To date I have not read or heard a single reason why gays shouldn't get married that makes sense from a practical perspective.

 

[Brennin]

Listen, homosexual marriage is a reality...

No.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

No you're not. You are asking that the whole of society endorse and institutionalize unnatural sex acts.

Institutionalize in the sense that it be written into law, yes. Endorse, no. You can still hate gays (and I presume you will, even when same-sex marriage is legalized) and hold on to whatever beliefs you have.

 

[gengwall]

No you're not. You are asking that the whole of society endorse and institutionalize unnatural sex acts.

Who said anything about sex???? Are you implying you would endorse homosexual marriage if the couple pledged celibecy? I certainly think not. The sex is irrelevant. What is being discussed is a civil union and who can enter into it. If we really are to have equal protection, shouldn't all citizens be able to enter into the same civil contracts and have the same civil rights?

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Maybe in a sense. But what IS similar is how society reacts to them. That's the key, that ought to be the focus, in my opinion. To date I have not read or heard a single reason why gays shouldn't get married that makes sense from a practical perspective.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Similar in the sense that the same canards used to discredit interracial marriages are being brought out of the attic to attack same-sex marriages.

 

[Argent]

The struggle for equal rights for homosexuals to marry is very similar to the struggle for people of different races to marry. That's what I'm talking about. I don't know what you're going on about.

This co-opting of the civil rights rhetoric by homosexual activists is a travesty of all that African-American have struggled for.

It is not a choice to be black. It is not a sin for a black man and woman to engage in sexual intercourse within marriage. It is not a choice to be white or black, nor is it a sin for a white person and a black person to engage in sexual intercourse within marriage.

Engaging in homosexual sex acts are a sin. Period. There is no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is one man, of any race, and one woman, of any race.

As much as the homosexual activist would like to couch this demand in terms of "civil rights", it is a deception.

 

[Spinrad]

Institutionalize in the sense that it be written into law, yes. Endorse, no. You can still hate gays (and I presume you will, even when same-sex marriage is legalized) and hold on to whatever beliefs you have.

Indeed, you will notice that women's suffrage didn't stop wife beatings, nor did black voter registration prevent cross burnings. Hate is a guaranteed right under the Constitution.

 

[Brennin]

Institutionalize in the sense that it be written into law, yes...

I see no reason why society should be compelled to recognize gay partnerships.

 

[gengwall]

Listen, homosexual marriage is a reality...

No.

Seriously, what color is the sky in your world? I understand that you can make the statement that the fundimentalist Christian perspective of biblical marriage will never embrace homosexual marriage. I think it is pretty clear that, from that perspective, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. But this discussion is not limited to that context. In fact, I believe does not consider that context at all. The context being discussed is "marriage" as a civil union. You simply are quite wrong to deny that homosexual civil unions, which we also term "marriages", exist in the real world.

 

[Spinrad]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Similar in the sense that the same canards used to discredit interracial marriages are being brought out of the attic to attack same-sex marriages.

I think it's also a good idea to simply abandon this nonsense about whether gay marriage has happened in the past. We live NOW. Government by the people, for the People and of The People is very new as far as being put into practice. Make an argument about the dangers of gay marriage as it relates to my day to day existence or shove the hell off.

 

[Brennin]

Seriously, what color is the sky in your world? I understand that you can make the statement that the fundimentalist Christian perspective of biblical marriage will never embrace homosexual marriage. I think it is pretty clear that, from that perspective, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. But this discussion is not limited to that context. In fact, I believe does not consider that context at all. The context being discussed is "marriage" as a civil union. You simply are quite wrong to deny that homosexual civil unions, which we also term "marriages", exist in the real world.

Listen, if people got together and voted to call a square a circle it still would not be a circle.