[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by burgerflipper

Ok children calm down.

Here's my question, If a person was born with a presence of mind which tells them to be attracted to and love another of the same sex; should they suffer his or hers entire life because of a scripture written in a book by someone whom they never met?

Should they be told by our government and other citizens what is right and wrong when they have done nothing different than others?

Honestly, who the hell do we think we are? Maybe most of us need to step down from our moral high ground and realize that the gay population isn’t going to turn straight and give them the same rights as the rest of us.

MY opinion is completely unbiased. I do not understand the whole gay thing. Well, not 2 men, anyway. Two females I get and I completely endorse....= ).

Seriously though, worry about your won marriages. We have a 51% divorce rate as nation and don’t let gay marriage get in the way on working your own issues out.

You are correct that marriages are in trouble in America. I believe that our success as a nation is directly tied to the stability and structure of marriage. It's too big of an issue to just throw out all standards and change the definition of it to suit a vocal minority.

[thatguy1]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You are correct that marriages are in trouble in America. I believe that our success as a nation is directly tied to the stability and structure of marriage. It's too big of an issue to just throw out all standards and change the definition of it to suit a vocal minority.

Yeah, to suit them. Has nothing to do with you. Get it yet? You're own marriage is only as good as you make it. Not the gay couple next door.

[kdbrich]

But it does weaken the institution of marriage.

Having said that...I don't understand the need. Gay people can get a contract drawn up that gives each other all rights of being married.

[Stacy From Cali]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I am not sure where anyone has questioned how religious blacks might be, but rather mentioned they are normally not catholics or mormans.

should anyone have the right to decide how can be covered by their insurance? sure, in fact many major companies now have this clause, should anyone have the right to decide who can make decisions for them or be told of their phyiscal condition? Yes, but the issue, but marriage is a different issue in my book...Call me prejudice, or a bigot, whatever, I don't think I am any of the above, I just think the line has to be drawn and this isn't not a civil right. Again, my opinion, not to mention, protesting is a right, but too often leads to violence and accomplishes little.

Nita

Erm, Not too sure how insurance factors into this really...

Marriage is of course a civil right simply by definition. It is privileges bestowed upon individuals by a legal status. In other words as soon as the government becomes involved (ie. legal marriage verses simply a religious ceremony) a right becomes civil (or legal) rather than just a natural right or human right (the assumption being one you are born with a la John Locke).

Protesting accomplishes quite a bit actually. It gives a voice to those who do not have a traditional voice within the system. Of course the most powerful example of protests in our county were the civil rights protests of the 1960's which succeeded in granting blacks equal rights. Had they never protested we would no doubt still suffer under Jim Crow. There is no doubt that they were successful.

It doesn't matter if blacks are neither catholic nor Mormon. Those groups were explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the pre-election Yes on 8 campaign and the hate-mongering lies they fed the public. Obviously many of those who are religious feel strongly (wrongly in my opinion, but then I believe organised religion to be anathama, no pun intended) that gay marriage is against god. Fine. What I do not understand is why people cannot understand that marriage need not be understood in a religious context to be valid. I am married and I do not believe in god...does that mean that I should not be legaly allowed to marry either?


Finally, to the person who posted the bible verses...why do people believe some of the bible but choose to selectively ignore other parts? Like:

Leviticus 19:19 - Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

Leviticus 19:27 Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise nor shave your beard.

or one of my favorites...

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (my summary) If two men fight and a woman grabs her man's opponant's balls and squeezes (to hasten the end of the fight) then "thou shall cut off her hand, neither shalt thou be moved with pity in her regard." (and people think the Koran is violent!)

Oooh I just found this great website...Here is an excerpt:

[SIZE=+3]An "abomination?"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know...[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=-1]The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1] to you." (Leviticus 11:10)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1]." (Leviticus 11:11)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1] to you." (Leviticus 11:12)[/SIZE]

Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible (http://www.fallwell.com/selective%20quotation.html - broken link)

[Raphael07]

That and Leviticus says you shouldn't eat pork, in those Chapters are Jewish Laws. And, as Christians, don't we believe the only way to Heaven is through faith in God and Jesus? So unless being Gay directly intervenes in that, nothing is wrong with them.

And by the way, Gays account for Approximately 11% of Humans, African Americans by comparison account for 12% of the United States and yet they have the right to marry who ever they want and have it called marriage.

[kdbrich]

Actually, no. Black people have to marry within the confines of marriage, as it is regulated in our country.

Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights--no more, no less.

[thatguy1]

I guess I dont know why we are still sitting here talking about a book. This is a human rights issue that no paper back book is going to fix.

[kdbrich]

no. it is not a human rights issue. marriage your way is not a basic human right.

[Stacy From Cali]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

no. it is not a human rights issue. marriage your way is not a basic human right.

Ah, but it is a civil rights issue...

[Todd4]

what if everyone was just allowed a "civil union", gay and straight.

then, if you belong to a church, temple, etc..., they could decide if you can be "married" there or not.



because i don't think you don't care if gay couples have the exact same rights as married couples, so why not just take the word "marriage" out of federal law and make that word part of each couple's own religious ceremony ?