To all of those who think...

[God-fearing Queer]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

 

[LittleNipper]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

In GOD's eyes such behavior is not beneficial to society at large. It is a selfish act that accomplishes nothing within the confines of homosexuality. That "couple" is entitled to nothing but to be left alone...

 

[lawtonfogle]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

Putting money over social acceptance. It doesn't work well for a play on pathos.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

Putting money over social acceptance. It doesn't work well for a play on pathos.

Uh huh... and Christians, as a whole, ARE accepted by society? I wouldn't think it wise to put societal acceptance on a golden pedastal... considering the Bible says that society today is sinful.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Uh huh... and Christians, as a whole, ARE accepted by society? I wouldn't think it wise to put societal acceptance on a golden pedastal... considering the Bible says that society today is sinful.

Never suggested that we should put it on a pedestal, only that your opening story (or 'what if?', it is too general to be a story) set a mood, but then the whole money > social acceptance killed it. I would suggest just leaving the mention of money out, lest people think your want to get married is based in money (which while it is still a good reason, it isn't as up their on the
noble' scale such as wanting to see a dieing partner is).

 

[God-fearing Queer]

Never suggested that we should put it on a pedestal, only that your opening story (or 'what if?', it is too general to be a story) set a mood, but then the whole money > social acceptance killed it. I would suggest just leaving the mention of money out, lest people think your want to get married is based in money (which while it is still a good reason, it isn't as up their on the
noble' scale such as wanting to see a dieing partner is).

I was explaining the fact that I care so little about societal acceptance that collecting social security benefits is WAY more important to me.

 

[God-fearing Queer]

In GOD's eyes such behavior is not beneficial to society at large. It is a selfish act that accomplishes nothing within the confines of homosexuality. That "couple" is entitled to nothing but to be left alone...

You've missed my point. I don't care about societal acceptance... I care about seeing my partner if he's dying. Oh, and I'd like to know where in the Bible you found out that sex between two loving individuals is selfish...

 

[TooCurious]

In GOD's eyes such behavior is not beneficial to society at large. It is a selfish act that accomplishes nothing within the confines of homosexuality. That "couple" is entitled to nothing but to be left alone...

Love is selfish now?

Putting money over social acceptance. It doesn't work well for a play on pathos.

What about putting rights over social acceptance? And let's face it, we heterosexuals get a lot of financial rights and priveleges when we marry. Gay couples should have equal access to those rights and priveleges.

 

[Verv]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

I will go on the streets and protest right next to you if we are talking about more liberal visitation policies at hospitals that would allow gays to visit their lovers.

But if you are talking about changing an ancient and important tradition of our society because you want to be able to easily visit your lover in the hospital... You have your priorities wrong.

Protest what should be protested. Don't change definitions on us.

 

[TooCurious]

I will go on the streets and protest right next to you if we are talking about more liberal visitation policies at hospitals that would allow gays to visit their lovers.

But if you are talking about changing an ancient and important tradition of our society because you want to be able to easily visit your lover in the hospital... You have your priorities wrong.

Protest what should be protested. Don't change definitions on us.

I'm glad you think that gay couples should have protected hospital visitation rights.

Still, I find the latter part of your post a bit problematic. The "ancient and important tradition" of marriage has changed significantly through the centuries. Its definition has changed repeatedly since ancient times, and I think most of us are very glad of those changes. In the past, marriage has included the ability of men to wed multiple wives, the practice of marrying young girls off at ages that would shock the sensibilities of most people today, and the arrangement of marriages for the political or financial gain of the couple's families -- often with the bride and groom having minimal (if any) interaction before the wedding. These have all changed: in America, at least (I won't speak for any other countries, as I'm not as familiar with their laws), monogamy is the law, one must be a legal adult to wed (though there are some areas that have provisions for parental consent for younger couples), and love is considered to be the ideal primary purpose for marriage.

The shape of the institution of marriage is considerably different than it was in ancient times, and I think the vast majority of us are very glad of these changes. Why, then, should it not change again, to accomodate pairs of consenting adults in loving relationships who wish to solemnize their commitments to one another in the same way that the rest of us may do?

And remember, there are more rights accorded to legally-married couples than simply hospital visitation.

 

[Verv]

Hey Curious, I will say this:

I am such a traditionalist on marriage that I think if I were to ever get a divorce I really would feel too depressed and would not want to re-marry. I would consider it adultery for me to sleep with a woman after I had married and been divorced unless it was int he circumstance of her having an affair on me, which is the only grounds for legitimate divorce that Christ outlined.

I am a traditionalist and I just do not think divorce is really OK, either, but it should be legal because I think I cannot force myv iews of marriage on others.

But more than that:

I support this idea -- all official marriages become civil unions, and marriage should not be a word used in government.

Although marriage has changed greatly over the years the standard of Christian marriage was the same amongst Christian peoples until recently, and it was simple:

One man, one woman; exclusive to one another in their sexuality; divorce only on the grounds of having an affair. But I would support divorce for someone who beats up their spouse, of course. It cannot be expected that a man or woman stay in an unsafe environment.

And that is my views and my religious take and it's personal so I do not extend the expectation to others.

If our government does not want to continue with a generally OK definition of marriage I would prefer for them to forfeit it.

I live in South Korea and intend to stay here for the rest of my life so it is not that large of an issue,but if I were in the US I would perhaps even prefer to have a Common Law wife as opposed to a legal one as a general protest of my own against the society as a whole.

And you know what, gays should be allowed not only visitation rights but they should be allowed every single civic right that is reserved exclusively to couples; they should have programs to get insurance and tax breaks and the likes just as much as us because the government should draw no lines in recognition of citizens.

It would be nice if, as a political tool, heterosexuals did not marry until gays could enter a civil union and be given the same rights. Politically, I support all equality for all gays.

It is merely on moral issues I do nto feel that in my religious views they can be married and I would prefer that the government does not usurp a Judeo-Christian tradition and extend it to gays. However, I also do not appreciate that they deprive productive, good citizens of rights for the same reason.

The solution: No marriage before the government's eyes. Only before God's.

 

[Rimbaud]

In GOD's eyes such behavior is not beneficial to society at large. It is a selfish act that accomplishes nothing within the confines of homosexuality. That "couple" is entitled to nothing but to be left alone...

That has nothing to do with what he asked. Answer his question honestly and on point please.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government. To all of those who think this, I have a one question:

If your loved one, who you lived with, who you shared all your hopes and dreams with, who you'd known for 20 years, was hit by a car and was rushed to hospital, and you were denied visitation rights or indeed, any knowledge at all as to the welfare of your beloved, and no say in how your loved one's affairs are dealt with, how would you feel?

Contemplate the above question, and then tell me I want to get married so I can, 'gain approval of my lifestyle'. Never mind approval! I want the ~1400 rights that heterosexual couples get! I want the visitation rights, social security benefits, the tax advantages - societal approval is at the bottom of my list!

What if you were legally married and the state denied you rights to be able to opt your children out of gay indoctrination lessons in "public" schools?

My wife knows I love her even if I were denied entrance to the hospital she was in.

Your "poor pitiful me" plea, doesn't alter the fact that GLBT's want to use gay marriage to teach the acceptance of homosexuality to everyone's children.

And in any case, same-gender couples get all of the benefits you desire from civil union. No need to hijack the word "marriage" for acceptance purposes.

And, while your at the "we just want to get along" speech, please remember that sexual proclivities should be a private matter.

As far as "I'm" concerned, any two adults should be able to get a civil union for all of the purposes you seek. Please tell me why I need to hear about your sexual tastes in a civil union campaign?

 

[Rimbaud]

I will go on the streets and protest right next to you if we are talking about more liberal visitation policies at hospitals that would allow gays to visit their lovers.

But if you are talking about changing an ancient and important tradition of our society because you want to be able to easily visit your lover in the hospital... You have your priorities wrong.

Protest what should be protested. Don't change definitions on us.

There is no "change" being done. The only marriage we care about is the one recognized by the state. That has nothing to do with tradition, though you are completely wrong there. There have been plenty of societies that have allowed for and approved of gay unions including specifying it as a marriage. So it simply depends on what version of history you are looking at, your distorted ignorant view or the whole picture readily available in libraries all over the nation and thanks to today's modern invention of the Internet right in your own home.

 

[TooCurious]

jmverville:

While I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the notion of religion (in general, or Christianity in particular, since members of other faiths marry as well, and have done for a very long time) having a monopoly on the word "marriage" -- as an atheist, I will one day have a completely nonreligious nuptial ceremony, and will still consider myself married -- I respect where you're coming from, and agree that there should be clearer lines drawn between "legal marriage" and "religious marriage." That way, there would be less impulse for some folks to interfere with anyone's legal rights, or feel that their religious identity is being threatened.

 

[WorldIsMine]

I have heard many times from certain people that homosexuals want same sex marriage legalised so that they can be 'accepted into society', and that because we can't get acceptance for our lifestyle from the majority opinion, we need to get acceptance from the federal government.

You have to ask, do you really want the approval of the federal government, anyway? I say, keep marriage a voluntary social institution and keep the government out of it. Of course, I don't want to government in anything, but I can't see why anyone would feel the need for the approval of Leviathan.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hey Curious, I will say this:

I am such a traditionalist on marriage that I think if I were to ever get a divorce I really would feel too depressed and would not want to re-marry. I would consider it adultery for me to sleep with a woman after I had married and been divorced unless it was int he circumstance of her having an affair on me, which is the only grounds for legitimate divorce that Christ outlined.

I am a traditionalist and I just do not think divorce is really OK, either, but it should be legal because I think I cannot force myv iews of marriage on others.

But more than that:

I support this idea -- all official marriages become civil unions, and marriage should not be a word used in government.

Although marriage has changed greatly over the years the standard of Christian marriage was the same amongst Christian peoples until recently, and it was simple:

One man, one woman; exclusive to one another in their sexuality; divorce only on the grounds of having an affair. But I would support divorce for someone who beats up their spouse, of course. It cannot be expected that a man or woman stay in an unsafe environment.

And that is my views and my religious take and it's personal so I do not extend the expectation to others.

If our government does not want to continue with a generally OK definition of marriage I would prefer for them to forfeit it.

I live in South Korea and intend to stay here for the rest of my life so it is not that large of an issue,but if I were in the US I would perhaps even prefer to have a Common Law wife as opposed to a legal one as a general protest of my own against the society as a whole.

And you know what, gays should be allowed not only visitation rights but they should be allowed every single civic right that is reserved exclusively to couples; they should have programs to get insurance and tax breaks and the likes just as much as us because the government should draw no lines in recognition of citizens.

It would be nice if, as a political tool, heterosexuals did not marry until gays could enter a civil union and be given the same rights. Politically, I support all equality for all gays.

It is merely on moral issues I do nto feel that in my religious views they can be married and I would prefer that the government does not usurp a Judeo-Christian tradition and extend it to gays. However, I also do not appreciate that they deprive productive, good citizens of rights for the same reason.

The solution: No marriage before the government's eyes. Only before God's.

JM,

Stay in Korea. God is working mightlity there. Here in America, Sodom is rising faster than Rome and the mockers and miscreants have power over us. That being said, "this thread" is from a homosexual desiring a civl union recognition to secure benefits offered to married people for he and the person he cares about.

Why should we as Christians, care about this person or his lifestyle choice?

Even Jesus taught that pagans can do what pagans want to do.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

jmverville:

While I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the notion of religion (in general, or Christianity in particular, since members of other faiths marry as well, and have done for a very long time) having a monopoly on the word "marriage" -- as an atheist, I will one day have a completely nonreligious nuptial ceremony, and will still consider myself married -- I respect where you're coming from, and agree that there should be clearer lines drawn between "legal marriage" and "religious marriage." That way, there would be less impulse for some folks to interfere with anyone's legal rights, or feel that their religious identity is being threatened.

JM,

See how nice these people seem to be. They'll never harm us. Right? No, of course not.

Click over to the gay bishop thread and see.

 

[TooCurious]

JM,

See how nice these people seem to be. They'll never harm us. Right? No, of course not.

Click over to the gay bishop thread and see.

Precisely which "these people" do you mean, Polycarp_fan?

 

[Q2004]

And in any case, same-gender couples get all of the benefits you desire from civil union. No need to hijack the word "marriage" for acceptance purposes.

Marriage is the word used for the civil ceremony in the US. The word has already been "hijacked." You understand that when two Hindus (pagans) marry in the US, they are married and not simply in a "civil union"?

Surely you complain about this with as much fervor as you do about teh gays trying to steal "marriage" from you and God? Or is your argument completely empty? If you think marriage should be replaced with civil unions in a legal context in the US, that's one thing, but if you're under the impression that marriage isn't already synonymous with civil union, I'm afraid you're quite mistaken.