what I really don't understand is why anyone would think that allowing 'Same-sex marriage' will in any way change non-Same-sex marriage.

what happened to the no church / state thing?

One thing I'm unclear on is there seems to be a difference between ``civil union'' and ``marriage'', and I don't know what it is.

What rights and benefits do married people have

I don’t think the government should be wasting tax dollars and time thinking about laws for or against this issue.

Athiests get married all the time.

Well marriage is already a church/state thing. It’s clearly a religious institution (at least in many cases), but it’s also a union recognized by the state for legal purposes. With the same sex legislation, religious intuitions are feeling like the state is stepping on the church’s toes by redefining a religious term into a secular one.

Athiests get married all the time.

Now everyone who has been married in a church has made a public, solemn promise to stick to his (or her) partner till death. The duty of keeping that promise has no special connection with sexual morality: it is in the same position as any other promise. If, as modern people are always telling us, the sexual impulse is just like all our other impulses; and as their indulgence is controlled by our promises, so should its be. If, as I think, it is not like all out other impulses, but is morbidly inflamed, then we should be specially careful not to let it lead us into dishonesty.

To this someone may reply that he regarded the promise made in church as a mere formality and never intended to keep it. Whom, then, was he trying to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise. Himself? That was not very much wiser. The bride, or bridegroom, or the 'in-laws'? That was treacherous. More often, I think, the couple (or one of them) hoped to deceive the public. They wanted the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price: that is, they were impostors, they cheated.

there seems to be a difference between ``civil union'' and ``marriage''

what happened to the no church / state thing?

Athiests get married all the time.

Isn't that just proof that the courts have already diluted marriage by interfering?

calling the state-side thing "civil union" and then rewriting 1,500 statutes to use that as the term defining these couples

Christian marriage is a population thing, just like opposition to birth control is a population thing.

I might get flamed for this

to the Christians on the board who have made comments alluding to the idea that only Christians have marriage, you may want to open your theocentric minds and take a look at reality. Christians are not the only people who have a right to get married, nor does Christianity have a coner on the marriage market.

Christians define marriage as an institution ordained by God, between a man and a woman. Other religions have similer definitions.

Now, if homosexual couples want to go to some secular huminist church and get married, fine. But neither I nor The Methodist Church (or Baptists, or Cathloic, or whatever, I simply said Methodist because that is the church I happen to belong to) is required to acknowledge it.

The problem here is not that gay and lesbian couples are dying to have a Christian wedding. It's that they want the same rights as anyone else.

If you ask me, having a problem with people being in love and wanting to show it is about the least Christian concept I can think of.

Marriage was originaly a strictly religious institution that has been adopted by the government.

Now convince the rest of the members of your religion to get their noses out of the government and let gays and lesbians have the same rights / benefits as "married" Christians. In the civil sense, I mean.

But why is it that as a religious person you (or anyone else who cares to reply) can't separate these concepts?

point out that it seems like the sun (not to mention the other planets) actually rotate around the Sun

My point is, the Church has been horribly wrong before. Again and again.

And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?

I have, just not in a way that many people like. "Marriage" occures in a church. "Civil-Union" occures in a courthouse.

Did you read the quote from C.S. Lewis? I though he summed it up well. I need to get a better picture of what you are missunderstanding before I can better explain things.

Because it shows the Church is fallable?

And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?

Fair enough, but keep in mind that some churches definition of marriage won't match yours

I'll admit to being one drink past clearly deciphering that quote

About slavery

Colossians 3:22

"slaves in all things submit to those who are your earthly masters."

1 Peter 2:18

"Slaves submit to your masters, not only those who are good and gentle, but also the perverse [ones]."

No, you aren't. Your diety is.

My main point is that homosexual couples want the "respectability" that comes with a traditional marriage

To me it is clear that marriage in the context of any discussion of law should mean a union of two people as it pertains to legal issues. I don't understand why people need to drag in the religious baggage.

There are plenty of words in the english language that mean different things based on context and personal viewpoint.

I've read the bible. It's one of the most violent, hateful, vindictive books I've ever read. Sorry if you feel like that's an attack. It's not. It's my opinion.

then there should be no problem finding a new one, right?

The individuals actions and personal beliefs are much more important, you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.

Surely you have something better than "we had it first" to explain why it is important to you

Hey! I got flagged for referencing somthing from only 400 years ago!

This is of course somewhat dependent on which version of the bible and which book of that version you are reading. All of the contents of the bible (and any religious text really) are tainted by the people who actually wrote the document

This doesn't work. The book is what it is. Rewriting it to make it a "kindler gentler" bible doesn't really do much for it's validity. And if it's tainted by the people who wrote the document, how can anyone's interpretation be any less tainted?

I wouldn't say that it is fair to hold a religious person to the word of the documents their religion is based on.

Uhhh... so....a person's religion....err....doesn't have to believe or follow the ....

...the DOCUMENTS IT'S BASED ON?

you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.

Hrmm... Am I to assume I'm not allowed to have religious beliefs because I...

(a) Don't follow a belief system that is (in my opinion) rife with conflict, contradiction and prejudice, and
(b) Don't constantly point out what my belief system is, how it works, and why people should accept it / understand it?

Forgive me, but I DO have beliefs. But they're my beliefs. And to assume that I have none because I don't follow Christianity is quite wrong.

I think this is the nub of the problem. It's a situation familiar to anyone in software engineering: the same routine has been doing two, not actually very similar, jobs, for years on end and separating the two becomes very difficult, as the whole thing means different things to different clients.

For what it's worth, it's not this way in other countries. I know that in Mexico, your church / religious wedding has no legal meaning whatsoever. You then show up in court and have a J.P. do a legally binding ceremony for you.

I can't actually find a place in the bible where it says that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.

Same sort of deal in both the US and Canada.......

you (not you explicitly, I'm not blaming) want to give it a new definition altogether.

I would absolutly weep with joy to hear a Christian say this.

Hmm, it seems to me that people where living together in some sort of loving union before any Christian religion defined the term marriage.

Well it always talks about marriage as being between a male and female,

and it forbids homosexual intercourse.

And since the Bible makes it clear that marriage is intended for the creating a suitable enviroment for the begating and raising of childeren

(since you can love someone without being married to them or having sex with them)

then I think from that alone we can safely infer that homosexual marriages would be frowned upon.

But no, I don't know of a specific verse. I'll ask my betters when I get a chance.

we would like for people to stop calling them the same thing as well. That's all.

I can see a few significant holes in the argument.

Furthermore while yes, loving unions existed, Judiasim (which Christianity branched off from) set aside a specific kind of loving union and called in marriage.

Homosexual couples "want the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price" same as the athiest couples. The price, in this case being, finding a partner of the opposit sex and having the discipline to learn to get along with them dispite your differences, as well as, of course, beliving in the God you are making these vows to.

Christian marriage is a population thing, just like opposition to birth control is a population thing.

I'm afraid you are wrong on both accounts. As I said before, this is about God, and what He has chosen marriage to be.

I don't doubt for a minute that straight marriage is one of the tenets of your religion.

So if a hetrosexual couple are known to be sterile for some reason they should not be allowed to be married ?

The laws of nature do not allow two people of the same sex to have offspring; however, the laws of nature do allow a male and a female to have offspring. Whether one is sterile is a totally different issue.

So does that mean that lesbian weddings should be allowed,

Well, I honestly can't find the verse that says this, either. I mean, the clearest verse I can find regarding that is the one in Leviticus...

At least, assuming we are talking about the US, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

And by "establishment", which of the following does it refer to?

"Establishment" is a technical term in religious circles, with the precise meaning of a state-supported church.

Thank you! You'd be amazed at the number of people in the United States that think that this equates to "separation of church and state" in the sense that the government should be entirely secular.

You'd be amazed at the number of people outside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution...

as they would both be capable of producing offspring

look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce

Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so.

the enviornment for raising children is abolished

Both sexes plays different roles in upbringing, and any psychology book would tell you that a lack of either will mess the kid up pretty bad

look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce.

do you think scribes copying and others translating what they consider a holy book would take the utmost care to do it correctly?

even IF there is an error, or there is a truth distorted intentionally, do you think that the peer review of other believers who read subsequently will not catch it

Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family. If two people of the same sex do not have the ability to naturally create life of a child on their own.... well then they can't be married

``Well, the orginal text said ...''

any disobedience to your "master" if you're a slave.

1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to
e done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow
Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother,
because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You
may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your
brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the
land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will
richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful
to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your
God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations
but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will
rule over you.

11 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land
that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted
toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him
whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The
seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show
ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then
appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give
generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this
the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you
put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore
I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor
and needy in your land.

12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you
six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you
release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally
from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the
LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt
and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command
today (Deuteronomy 15:1-15).

Ugh. Jerz, this is not a personal attack I promise.

Can't be married??? By who's law?

Who the hell is a person to even have an opinion if a couple can get married or not?

So are you saying that if I marry a woman and don't have children (by choice or not) then the two of us don't have a family?

in order to survive humans must change.

Of course, in order to believe in any of the Bible you have to pick and choose, seeing as how it contradicts itself much of the time.

in order for the human race to survive it would need to reproduce

baring

marriage may not be religious in nature to everyone

you can’t fault the church for being upset when a sacred tradition of the church gets redefined as something else

The Old Testament Commanded the Killing of Homosexuals

Separation of Church and State

No. I believe that they would insert their own political views, just as the original authors of the Bible did.

You need to go back to Word.

Irrelevant tangent, really.

Separation of Church and State

Also a fairly irrelevant tangent.

What if there was a church that promoted gay life as a positive?

Would your Church overrule that?

How would it be ``bad for our country''?

wouldn't they be gay anyway, just repressing?

And wouldn't it be preferable to avoid making those people's lives miserable? Wouldn't it be better to allow them to be as happy as possible rather than confining them?

I think that God blesses and punishes countries ...

... any psychology book would tell you that a lack of either will mess the kid up pretty bad.

Happiness is nice, but it is not the end goal for which humans should aspire, at least in my mind. I’ve seen way too many people pursue happiness and fall deeper and deeper into depression. The happiest people I’ve ever met are those who deny themselves all of their desires and instead pursue the things of God.

Now, make mine a Guinness and the next rounds on me.

What about the Biblical prohibitions on the grog?

I'd posit that the separation of church and state was as much, if not more, for the protection of the state _from_ the church(es).

The fact is that many of the founding fathers were extremely critical of organized religion, from Jefferson to Adams to Franklin and many more.

Care to elaborate, because I am not following your argument.

Having the goverment say marriage means what the Christians want it to mean goes against everything this country was founded on like tolerance and freedom

> To be precise, they were critical of state-run organized religion, and not organized religion in and of itself.

If the state were to enforce one relgion, it would not be the church controlling the state, but the state controlling the religion.

As Bitt said and I tried to point out, separation of church and state is tangental to the issue of same-sex marriage. I think religion is involved in the discussion because it is an aspect of the church that Christians hold very stronly to[...]

They were theists

This issue is purely about Christians trying to force the law to make something that they don't approve of, for religious reasons, illegal for anyone regardless of their personal faith.

But doesn't this beg the question: If homosexuality is so much "against His precepts", then why did He choose to make some people homosexual?

I can't help thinking of the joke... the Monk is down in the cellar, verifying by candlelight that the newly finished transcription is a perfect copy of the original. Tears are streaming from his eyes, he's beating his fists on the table, saying: "Celebrate. The word was CELEBRATE!"