Bottom line, EVERYONE has the same rights! Everyone has the right to be happy, and have a partner in their lives, as well as to be provided benefits as married couple have, one being to visit a sick or dying partner in the hospital.

 

I agree here. But don't use the M-word, as it does have deep religious roots, so will never gain much support.

Some people need to stop thumping their Bibles so that they can hear the rational argument. If your religion and denomination do not recognize gay marriage, and mine does not, that is fine. Religiously if we hold it to be a sin, then that is fine. I personally don't care, though I don't look forward to having the discussion about this with my boys. However, we have built part of our Constitution around making the United States a secular nation. So, legally speaking, how is it ok to deny one group of citizens the priviliges of marriage due to the fact that they like dudes? Divorce your religious views, and answer that question.

Good Post!

I sort of have the same line of thinking as you Blue Magic. I do believe that it is a choice, however a choice that is more than likely made subconsciously (some would argue then that really isn't a choice). But I feel that from birth we are manipulated by our surroundings, experiences, how we're treated, and etc. From the day we come from the womb, different things have an affect on us. I do not believe anyone is simply born gay (I don't think there is a gay gene or chromosone out there) but I also don't feel like people just wake up one day and say, "You know what, I'm going to be gay now." I think a lot of times it is a decision that is made subconciously.

 

I took a lot away from a psychology class that I took in college and we discussed this topic quite a bit. But I feel like when discussing sexuality you have to look at it on a linear scale from 0-10. Everyone falls in line somewhere on that and I would argue that very few are true "0's" and very few are true "10's". It's an interesting discussion.

 

My counter to what you're saying about choice is, how does a child, born to and raised by a rural-living, heterosexual Jehovah's witness family have the influences around him to become gay, subconsciously or consciously? I ask this because this is literally the family history of a friend of mine who is gay. He was born and raised in Bullitt County, went to Bullitt Central, raised Jehovah's Witness. His family has disowned him. He had no friends growing up because of his effeminate ways. He's not overtly homosexual. But he's no macho man. I didn't even realize he was gay for months after I started working with him.

 

As long as I've known him (over 6 years), he's had the same partner. They've bought a house together and have a more respectful, healthier relationship than many heterosexual couples I know.

 

Another friend of mine is female. She was born into a wealthy family here in Louisville, raised Catholic, attended Presentation High School. And when I met her, she was struggling with her sexuality. She finally "came out" only a couple of years ago. But to watch her struggles was heart-breaking. A big part of her reluctance to admit her sexuality was the effect it would have on her relationship with her family.

 

I struggle with the concept that homosexuality is a sin. Do I understand how a person could be attracted to someone of the same sex? Not at all. But the more people I've met...good, hardworking, honest people...the more I really feel that homosexuality is not a choice, nor based on external influence. It's not a "learned" behavior.

 

From a religious perspective, as a Catholic, there are several things that I have questioned over the years. But the one thing that I simply haven't been able to fully understand is the issue of the Church and it's position on homosexuality as a sin.

 

From a civil perspective, it doesn't matter what I think from a religious perspective. All people in this country should have the same legal rights. And if a man and a woman can be in a committed, legally recognized relationship, I feel same-sex couples should as well. If a heterosexual couple have legal rights then so too should homosexual couples. If religious institutions do not recognize the unions as marriage, I'm fine with that as well. The Catholic Church also doesn't recognize a heterosexual couple as married, until done in the Church. It's no different in my mind.

I agree here. But don't use the M-word, as it does have deep religious roots, so will never gain much support.

I agree. The government should only grant civil unions to ALL (heterosexual, homosexual). Marriage should be left as a religious institution.

For the sake of argument, let's say you cannot define marriage as between man and woman and deny two people of the same sex those rights. Then is there any legal standing to deny the rights of a group of 3-4-50 to be married?

 

Why would the rights of marriage end at only 2?

For the sake of argument, let's say you cannot define marriage as between man and woman and deny two people of the same sex those rights. Then is there any legal standing to deny the rights of a group of 3-4-50 to be married?

 

Why would the rights of marriage end at only 2?

 

I don't understand when people bring polygamy into the debate. Legally, you can only be married to one person at a time. That's a law. It's not illegal to be gay. It's not illegal to live together as a couple, hetero or homosexual. It's not the same argument at all. This is about the right for two people of the same sex to legally recognize their commitment to each other. It's about the legal rights of two legally bound people.

For the sake of argument, let's say you cannot define marriage as between man and woman and deny two people of the same sex those rights. Then is there any legal standing to deny the rights of a group of 3-4-50 to be married?

 

Why would the rights of marriage end at only 2?

I get your point but I am not seeing how allowing a gay couple to marry will open Pandora's Box of people marrying multiple people or their pets.

I don't understand when people bring polygamy into the debate. Legally, you can only be married to one person at a time. That's a law. It's not illegal to be gay. It's not illegal to live together as a couple, hetero or homosexual. It's not the same argument at all. This is about the right for two people of the same sex to legally recognize their commitment to each other. It's about the legal rights of two legally bound people.

Simple. Why can 3 people who are in love and are adults be denied the right to be married?

I get your point but I am not seeing how allowing a gay couple to marry will open Pandora's Box of people marrying multiple people or their pets.

Post 82

Simple. Why can 3 people who are in love and are adults be denied the right to be married?

 

Someone needs to read post #79....

Someone needs to read post #79....

Why can 3 or more people who are in love and are adults be denied the right to a civil union?

 

 

BTW, I do not believe this movement will be accepting of the term civil unions but rather want to be MARRIED!!!!!!!!!

 

I do not believe it is too hard for someone to start their own church in this country and then begin marrying people in a religious institute. Heck didn't Southeast in Louisville begin in someone's basement and now has 20,000 or so in their membership.

For the sake of argument, let's say you cannot define marriage as between man and woman and deny two people of the same sex those rights. Then is there any legal standing to deny the rights of a group of 3-4-50 to be married?

 

Why would the rights of marriage end at only 2?

 

I agree actually. As long as there are consenting adults, why should there be a limit? As long as no one is being coerced into it or underage I fail to see the problem as long as everyone is okay with it.

For the sake of argument, let's say you cannot define marriage as between man and woman and deny two people of the same sex those rights. Then is there any legal standing to deny the rights of a group of 3-4-50 to be married?

 

Why would the rights of marriage end at only 2?

 

I am with you here. I was going to head this direction next. How do you stop the slippery slope? Is there a way to make it clearly defined, or can it continue to change with whatever the loudest part of society is shouting? How about the ages of people in the marriage/union?

Say what you want, but homosexuality is an abomination. I have friends and family who are gay, but I do not condone what they do, as they also know I do not hate them for being gay. They CHOSE that lifestyle.

 

That's fine. I respect your opinion. While I don't agree with you, you're free to have those beliefs. But you're STILL straying from the main question. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? Sinful people get married all the time. Heck, I was at a wedding this past weekend that didn't mention God once in the ceremony, but managed (not kidding) to work in "nacho cheese" and "Van Wilder".

 

Taking the Bible out of the equation, please tell me why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Why can 3 or more people who are in love and are adults be denied the right to a civil union?

 

 

BTW, I do not believe this movement will be accepting of the term civil unions but rather want to be MARRIED!!!!!!!!!

 

I do not believe it is too hard for someone to start their own church in this country and then begin marrying people in a religious institute. Heck didn't Southeast in Louisville begin in someone's basement and now has 20,000 or so in their membership.

 

All they ask for is the same benefits provided to married couples. They don't care about titles. You really think there's any type of substantial backing for them to ever change the laws of marriage and civil unions from 2 people to multiples? If so, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for ya...

 

As to your second paragraph, who cares? If it's a different church than your's why do you care what their rules on marriage are? If I decided I wanted to do as you suggest and start marrying women or men to dogs, that doesn't mean it would have any binding or be recognized by anyone outside that religion.