When I balance the sanctity of marriage versus the sanctity of the Constitution, the Constitution wins in my mind.
It's amazing to me that as some people are realizing that the Constitution already says gays can marry, they actually believe their views are 'better' than the Constitution. That's astounding. I mean, the Constitution isn't perfect, but to believe it's a positive act to remove individual rights via the Constitution is fascist.
And it's doubly sad knowing that Nazi era Germany was probably the last western society that attempted to outlaw homosexuality. Put yourself in that company and enjoy it.
I don't support gay marriage. Do I hate gays? No. Do I believe a marriage is between a man and a women? Yes.
The main point should be that the government should not be dealing with marriage at all! Marriage should be a religious rite, and ultimately a bond between two consenting partners gay or straight, to declare undying love.
Unfortunately, the government has always been involved in marriage. Marriage between a man and a women. It seems to me that providing all the benefits to the married couple is simply the government's way of encouraging a couple to raise children in a safe and secure environment. Does it work all the time? No. But it helps guarantee the strength of the country in tomorrows world. The children will always be the future, and to that extent the government has used marriage to promote a strong union between a man and a women, so children can be raised appropriately. A homosexual couple cannot produce offspring. It's basic biology. I've lost my train of thought now. Oh well...
Okay, in your religion, don't let gays marry. Simple. (Tell them they're going to hell, too. That's fun.)
Don't like it that the US Government uses the same term as you do for the institution of a life-long couple-hood? Then lets add an amendment that makes courthouse marriage the same as a civil union, retaining the civil union name.
Your beloved institution is still holy, and the Government can still grant the protections of marriage to all lifelong couples.
Or, we could all just grow up, and realize that the same term can be used concurrently without the APOCALYPSE coming.
While the US Constitution obviously addresses individual rights and responsibilities in the Amendments, those, it would seem to me, are about restricting abuse of the government in those areas. They're obviously phrased in a way that addresses the impact on the citizen, but that's how I've always looked at them. I think we've lost our way with what the Constitution is for and who it is for. It is to limit government, not for the government to limit others.
Anyway, we should probably just dump the whole marriage thing as far as the government's concerned.
It's a joke because it shouldn't be a national issue. The states should make their own decisions and that should be it.
<Damn, if it were only that simple>
It's at the national level because the US Government has a special status for Marriage, and apparantly neither Bush nor you can handle the fact that the religious and legal institutions are named the same. Just capitalize one and not the other... That works for God/god why not Marriage
Ya know what? The more I think about this issue, the more I come to realize that Jefferson was right. We all have "...certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"(Thomas Jefferson). So whatever make you happy, as long as it doesn't endanger me or my family is fine by me. Go get married, be happy.
just for a bit more perspective. the sister of my good friend got married in the san fran marriage-a-thon. here's a picture.
if you can't be happy for them, i just don't know who you can be happy for.
p.s. if you're wondering, that cell phone was "broadcasting" the service live to my friend in ohio, who then taped it off his speakerphone and ripped it to mp3.
Well I should have known this would become a "pile on Bush" like every other thread does.
As I said, I'm not sure about an amendment. But, polling shows that 2/3 of the country (at least) opposes gay marriage. As for an amendment, it's pretty much a dead heat, poll-wise.
As for Bush being stupid to do this, I couldn't disagree more. From a political standpoint, this will further solidify his grasp on the Religous Right and the Bible Belt. It won't lose him any votes because anyone so opposed to this wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. Yes, there may be those who like Bush otherwise and disagree with him here, but that's going to be a small number. Do you hoenstly think Karl Rove hasn't done the math on that one? It's a smart political move. Secondly, he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive, forcing them to respond to his position rather than stake their own. They'll either have to be for or against, and I'm thinking Kerry will flop AGAIN and come out as "opposed" to the amendment. He pretty much has to if he's to get any of the more left-leaning liberal Democrats out there.
And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd.
Well I'm sorry but this will work exactly the opposite of the way you think it will.
The thing is I thought republicans were against big government? Well what the hell is this?
The act of a desparate man.
Nope SDW, this is just another log on the fire.
By the way your predictions so far aren't exactly batting a thousand.
" Bush wins all 50 states! "
Not much chance of that now.
Also about this : " he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive ".
All Bush has done is make himself look bad ( again ).
I imagine there's a parallel universe out there where events follow the course you expect. Not in this one however.
If you put this all together with the other things plus " where's the WOMD? " it looks pretty bad for dubbya.
I'm sorry but people just don't like to be told how they must run their lives. In this case unfair discrimination.
You're spot on with this. The sub-24 group overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, something in the range of 70%. The GOP may win themselves some elections now on this issue, but they are most definitely shooting themselves in the foot for the long haul.
i wish i could totally agree with this, but the right-wing religious conservatives do have very strong family units, by and large (well, okay, that's my own personal observation from deep in the loosest buckle of the bible belt), and those same strong beliefs are passed down to their children 100%. i cannot tell you how many disturbing conversations i have been within earshot of in the rural areas around here with the sub-24 crowd. as the saying goes, it's how they were brought up. the only positive is that's it's better than it was 10 and 20 years ago. also, the times are a-changing, where anyone who is terribly off-center with their policies during campaigns get suspicion cast their way and then not elected. the middle of the road (but keep your opinions to yourself until you're actually in office) will be a popular stance for a very long time to come.
Well, I recognize this argument from my teenage days:
Come on dad, why can't I go to the party? You just want to oppress me! You hate me! Why can't I go? All my friends are going?
I am not really sure why gays want to marry? Isn't this the age of "just living togethers is good enough" and "It's just a piece of paper"? Haven't liberals been mocking the whole marriage thing... like forever? Why now is it so important to be married? They can't really be religious, at least no religion that follows the bible as a guide. Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the bible. It has to be a purely secular reason, I would think.
Does it mean that they just want the monetary benefits (yeah right) of marriage? Seems very superficial. Do they just want to prove gays can divorce at the same rate as straights?
Anyway, why is the whole country paying any attention to this tiny minority? I don't think anyone would care what they do, but they just keep making such a big deal about everything. It seems that this small minority will not be happy until they can freely and openly demonstrate the mating habits of the gay man. What ever happened to just living a quiet and happy life?
I mean really, how many times do you and I run into some kind of unfairness? I would submit that it happens several times a day. I don't know about you, I just find another way to get what I want done. I don't waste everyone else's time and bitch about how unfair life is. I don't form a support group and lobby congress on behalf of the many unfairnesses. I don't run to media and claim that I and others are being treated unfairly.
In my small hometown, when I was growing up there was a couple of gay couples. Everyone knew it. No-one hated them. No-one ridiculed them. They did not flaunt it. They lived like everyone else. They knew in order to live in peace they had to be peaceable and sensible, just like everyone else.
Now let me say something really controversial:
I don't hate anyone, I do however condemn homosexual behavior. I, as many feel it is a sin. Just like infidelity, stealing, lying, fornication and so on. Does that mean that I should mistreat those who choose that lifestyle? Or should I not interact with them at all? Or not be courteous toward them? No, that is not what it means. It means that I just don't accept that kind of behavior. As long as they treat me with respect, I will do the same.
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.
Then why punish the person if you simply don't like their behavior? I really don't like the behavior of a lot of religious people, but it doesn't effect me so I don't condemn it. I certainly don't try and stop it.
How can you justify limiting the actions of someone who doesn't effect you in any way?
As for your questions about WHY gays might want to marry, BRussell just put out a great list of reasons why they would want to marry. Please read it and comment on why you're justified in limiting access to the items in that list from homosexuals.
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.
Why would it be controversial? I think most of us, from the moderate republicans(or ex Reps like myself) to the more liberal posters can see what an ignorant and close minded post that was. Are there more like you where you're from?
Trying to ammend the Constitution over gay marriage just proves one more time(anyone out there keeping count?) how ass backwards Bush and his administration are.
And to think I voted for DUHbya over the inventor of the internet. I apologize to the rest of the planet for that.
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.
On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.
On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married." Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?
So...why the discrepancy between the two paragraphs above? I'm genuinely asking because I'm confused on the whole thing. In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.
I'll also echo NaplesX's comments about separating the ACT from the PERSON. I don't agree with homosexuality. I believe in what the Bible says about a man being with a woman. That said, I know and respect gays and lesbians for the people they are and feel that God calls me to love them in spite of their sin because He loves me in spite of mine.
Do I hate the *idea* of homosexuality? I guess you could say that.
Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not.
In both answers, my responses are based on what I feel I'm called to believe as a Christian. PLEASE don't immediately jump out and condemn me and hate me for believing this way. For one it's not any better than what you're accusing others of, and secondly I'm trying to be sensitive to both sides of the issue. If you can't see that I'm sorry.
EDIT: BTW and FWIW, I do NOT support a Constitutional Amendment on this. It's too broad and far-reaching to be any sort of an appropriate way to resolve this debate.
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.
On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.
On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married." Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?
So...why the discrepancy between the two paragraphs above? I'm genuinely asking because I'm confused on the whole thing. In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.
I'll also echo NaplesX's comments about separating the ACT from the PERSON. I don't agree with homosexuality. I believe in what the Bible says about a man being with a woman. That said, I know and respect gays and lesbians for the people they are and feel that God calls me to love them in spite of their sin because He loves me in spite of mine.
Do I hate the *idea* of homosexuality? I guess you could say that.
Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not.
In both answers, my responses are based on what I feel I'm called to believe as a Christian. PLEASE don't immediately jump out and condemn me and hate me for believing this way. For one it's not any better than what you're accusing others of, and secondly I'm trying to be sensitive to both sides of the issue. If you can't see that I'm sorry.
EDIT: BTW and FWIW, I do NOT support a Constitutional Amendment on this. It's too broad and far-reaching to be any sort of an appropriate way to resolve this debate.
As far as "Why do they want to get married" goes: because homosexuals are people. They are Americans, conservatives, faithful church goers, tradition lovers, romantics, foolish, naive, hopeful, and look good in white. They want to grow old together with the blessings of their communities. Someone dared them. It's a lark. It's the most important day of their lives.
They are our friends and sisters and uncles and teachers and grocers and the angry unemployed and the well to do and the apathetic and the engaged and the doomed.
They are exactly like you. There is no such thing as "they".
Where in my post did you see that i say to limit freedoms of anyone?
I don't care what the government does as far as gay marriage goes, I still will condemn homosexual behavior based on my beliefs. That won't change. Just like I don't expect everyone else to accept everything I do or believe. It is an easy concept to grasp. You go your way, I'll go mine. What is so hard to get about that?
Do I have to have a "Gay Day" at my house to prove that I am tolerant?
I can tolerate just about anybody. But I do not accept what I feel is bad behavior. I hope all of you would do the same whichever way you lean on this issue.
Comments
It's amazing to me that as some people are realizing that the Constitution already says gays can marry, they actually believe their views are 'better' than the Constitution. That's astounding. I mean, the Constitution isn't perfect, but to believe it's a positive act to remove individual rights via the Constitution is fascist.
And it's doubly sad knowing that Nazi era Germany was probably the last western society that attempted to outlaw homosexuality. Put yourself in that company and enjoy it.
Originally posted by Crusader
I don't support gay marriage. Do I hate gays? No. Do I believe a marriage is between a man and a women? Yes.
The main point should be that the government should not be dealing with marriage at all! Marriage should be a religious rite, and ultimately a bond between two consenting partners gay or straight, to declare undying love.
Unfortunately, the government has always been involved in marriage. Marriage between a man and a women. It seems to me that providing all the benefits to the married couple is simply the government's way of encouraging a couple to raise children in a safe and secure environment. Does it work all the time? No. But it helps guarantee the strength of the country in tomorrows world. The children will always be the future, and to that extent the government has used marriage to promote a strong union between a man and a women, so children can be raised appropriately. A homosexual couple cannot produce offspring. It's basic biology. I've lost my train of thought now. Oh well...
Okay, in your religion, don't let gays marry. Simple. (Tell them they're going to hell, too. That's fun.)
Don't like it that the US Government uses the same term as you do for the institution of a life-long couple-hood? Then lets add an amendment that makes courthouse marriage the same as a civil union, retaining the civil union name.
Your beloved institution is still holy, and the Government can still grant the protections of marriage to all lifelong couples.
Or, we could all just grow up, and realize that the same term can be used concurrently without the APOCALYPSE coming.
While the US Constitution obviously addresses individual rights and responsibilities in the Amendments, those, it would seem to me, are about restricting abuse of the government in those areas. They're obviously phrased in a way that addresses the impact on the citizen, but that's how I've always looked at them. I think we've lost our way with what the Constitution is for and who it is for. It is to limit government, not for the government to limit others.
Anyway, we should probably just dump the whole marriage thing as far as the government's concerned.
<Damn, if it were only that simple>
Originally posted by Crusader
It's a joke because it shouldn't be a national issue. The states should make their own decisions and that should be it.
<Damn, if it were only that simple>
It's at the national level because the US Government has a special status for Marriage, and apparantly neither Bush nor you can handle the fact that the religious and legal institutions are named the same. Just capitalize one and not the other... That works for God/god why not Marriage
Ok that's it, I am saying no more on this topic.
if you can't be happy for them, i just don't know who you can be happy for.
p.s. if you're wondering, that cell phone was "broadcasting" the service live to my friend in ohio, who then taped it off his speakerphone and ripped it to mp3.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well I should have known this would become a "pile on Bush" like every other thread does.
As I said, I'm not sure about an amendment. But, polling shows that 2/3 of the country (at least) opposes gay marriage. As for an amendment, it's pretty much a dead heat, poll-wise.
As for Bush being stupid to do this, I couldn't disagree more. From a political standpoint, this will further solidify his grasp on the Religous Right and the Bible Belt. It won't lose him any votes because anyone so opposed to this wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. Yes, there may be those who like Bush otherwise and disagree with him here, but that's going to be a small number. Do you hoenstly think Karl Rove hasn't done the math on that one? It's a smart political move. Secondly, he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive, forcing them to respond to his position rather than stake their own. They'll either have to be for or against, and I'm thinking Kerry will flop AGAIN and come out as "opposed" to the amendment. He pretty much has to if he's to get any of the more left-leaning liberal Democrats out there.
And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd.
Well I'm sorry but this will work exactly the opposite of the way you think it will.
The thing is I thought republicans were against big government? Well what the hell is this?
The act of a desparate man.
Nope SDW, this is just another log on the fire.
By the way your predictions so far aren't exactly batting a thousand.
" Bush wins all 50 states! "
Not much chance of that now.
Also about this : " he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive ".
All Bush has done is make himself look bad ( again ).
I imagine there's a parallel universe out there where events follow the course you expect. Not in this one however.
If you put this all together with the other things plus " where's the WOMD? " it looks pretty bad for dubbya.
I'm sorry but people just don't like to be told how they must run their lives. In this case unfair discrimination.
More than ever :
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by HOM
You're spot on with this. The sub-24 group overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, something in the range of 70%. The GOP may win themselves some elections now on this issue, but they are most definitely shooting themselves in the foot for the long haul.
i wish i could totally agree with this, but the right-wing religious conservatives do have very strong family units, by and large (well, okay, that's my own personal observation from deep in the loosest buckle of the bible belt), and those same strong beliefs are passed down to their children 100%. i cannot tell you how many disturbing conversations i have been within earshot of in the rural areas around here with the sub-24 crowd. as the saying goes, it's how they were brought up. the only positive is that's it's better than it was 10 and 20 years ago. also, the times are a-changing, where anyone who is terribly off-center with their policies during campaigns get suspicion cast their way and then not elected. the middle of the road (but keep your opinions to yourself until you're actually in office) will be a popular stance for a very long time to come.
Come on dad, why can't I go to the party? You just want to oppress me! You hate me! Why can't I go? All my friends are going?
I am not really sure why gays want to marry? Isn't this the age of "just living togethers is good enough" and "It's just a piece of paper"? Haven't liberals been mocking the whole marriage thing... like forever? Why now is it so important to be married? They can't really be religious, at least no religion that follows the bible as a guide. Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the bible. It has to be a purely secular reason, I would think.
Does it mean that they just want the monetary benefits (yeah right) of marriage? Seems very superficial. Do they just want to prove gays can divorce at the same rate as straights?
Anyway, why is the whole country paying any attention to this tiny minority? I don't think anyone would care what they do, but they just keep making such a big deal about everything. It seems that this small minority will not be happy until they can freely and openly demonstrate the mating habits of the gay man. What ever happened to just living a quiet and happy life?
I mean really, how many times do you and I run into some kind of unfairness? I would submit that it happens several times a day. I don't know about you, I just find another way to get what I want done. I don't waste everyone else's time and bitch about how unfair life is. I don't form a support group and lobby congress on behalf of the many unfairnesses. I don't run to media and claim that I and others are being treated unfairly.
In my small hometown, when I was growing up there was a couple of gay couples. Everyone knew it. No-one hated them. No-one ridiculed them. They did not flaunt it. They lived like everyone else. They knew in order to live in peace they had to be peaceable and sensible, just like everyone else.
Now let me say something really controversial:
I don't hate anyone, I do however condemn homosexual behavior. I, as many feel it is a sin. Just like infidelity, stealing, lying, fornication and so on. Does that mean that I should mistreat those who choose that lifestyle? Or should I not interact with them at all? Or not be courteous toward them? No, that is not what it means. It means that I just don't accept that kind of behavior. As long as they treat me with respect, I will do the same.
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.
Then why punish the person if you simply don't like their behavior? I really don't like the behavior of a lot of religious people, but it doesn't effect me so I don't condemn it. I certainly don't try and stop it.
How can you justify limiting the actions of someone who doesn't effect you in any way?
As for your questions about WHY gays might want to marry, BRussell just put out a great list of reasons why they would want to marry. Please read it and comment on why you're justified in limiting access to the items in that list from homosexuals.
probably a little obscure of an analogy, but it just seems like people keep standing up and being shot down again by the same infallible argument
for the record, I support gay rights, I don't have any issues with gays, and see no reason to hold them back.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.
Why would it be controversial? I think most of us, from the moderate republicans(or ex Reps like myself) to the more liberal posters can see what an ignorant and close minded post that was. Are there more like you where you're from?
Trying to ammend the Constitution over gay marriage just proves one more time(anyone out there keeping count?) how ass backwards Bush and his administration are.
And to think I voted for DUHbya over the inventor of the internet.
On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.
On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married." Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?
So...why the discrepancy between the two paragraphs above? I'm genuinely asking because I'm confused on the whole thing. In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.
I'll also echo NaplesX's comments about separating the ACT from the PERSON. I don't agree with homosexuality. I believe in what the Bible says about a man being with a woman. That said, I know and respect gays and lesbians for the people they are and feel that God calls me to love them in spite of their sin because He loves me in spite of mine.
Do I hate the *idea* of homosexuality? I guess you could say that.
Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not.
In both answers, my responses are based on what I feel I'm called to believe as a Christian. PLEASE don't immediately jump out and condemn me and hate me for believing this way. For one it's not any better than what you're accusing others of, and secondly I'm trying to be sensitive to both sides of the issue. If you can't see that I'm sorry.
EDIT: BTW and FWIW, I do NOT support a Constitutional Amendment on this. It's too broad and far-reaching to be any sort of an appropriate way to resolve this debate.
Look at those two women, not eve close to being happy. They probably secretly hate each other.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.
On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.
On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married." Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?
So...why the discrepancy between the two paragraphs above? I'm genuinely asking because I'm confused on the whole thing. In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.
I'll also echo NaplesX's comments about separating the ACT from the PERSON. I don't agree with homosexuality. I believe in what the Bible says about a man being with a woman. That said, I know and respect gays and lesbians for the people they are and feel that God calls me to love them in spite of their sin because He loves me in spite of mine.
Do I hate the *idea* of homosexuality? I guess you could say that.
Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not.
In both answers, my responses are based on what I feel I'm called to believe as a Christian. PLEASE don't immediately jump out and condemn me and hate me for believing this way. For one it's not any better than what you're accusing others of, and secondly I'm trying to be sensitive to both sides of the issue. If you can't see that I'm sorry.
EDIT: BTW and FWIW, I do NOT support a Constitutional Amendment on this. It's too broad and far-reaching to be any sort of an appropriate way to resolve this debate.
As far as "Why do they want to get married" goes: because homosexuals are people. They are Americans, conservatives, faithful church goers, tradition lovers, romantics, foolish, naive, hopeful, and look good in white. They want to grow old together with the blessings of their communities. Someone dared them. It's a lark. It's the most important day of their lives.
They are our friends and sisters and uncles and teachers and grocers and the angry unemployed and the well to do and the apathetic and the engaged and the doomed.
They are exactly like you. There is no such thing as "they".
I don't care what the government does as far as gay marriage goes, I still will condemn homosexual behavior based on my beliefs. That won't change. Just like I don't expect everyone else to accept everything I do or believe. It is an easy concept to grasp. You go your way, I'll go mine. What is so hard to get about that?
Do I have to have a "Gay Day" at my house to prove that I am tolerant?
I can tolerate just about anybody. But I do not accept what I feel is bad behavior. I hope all of you would do the same whichever way you lean on this issue.
and we live in a country with many different religions
then why can't my religion also be one that supports Gay Marriage?
simply because yours does not doesn't mean that mine shouldn't be able to
and if my religion cannot practice its sacred rite:
that rite being the marriage between two loving people
then the state would be infringing on my religious freedoms...
no?