OT: Proposition 8

[Ehwmatt]

I can't marry an 8-year-old, even if in my warped mind I am in love with her, society hasn't deemed it fit. Am I being denied a right?

Stupid analogy, considering that marrying an 8 year old is child abuse, and therefore is illegal!

8 year olds cannot possibly consent like adult gay people can. Moot point, Matt.

It's a purposefully absurd analogy - society hasn't deemed it fit, just as the society in CA deemed gay marriage unfit, polygamy has been deemed unfit etc. The analogy was made to drive home the point that society can't be right only when it fits your personal convictions/views and wrong whenever it doesn't.

[Uno_up]

if we don't agree with their lifestyle we let it pass because we realize they are humans like us, and being creatures of thought and reason, we realize every life should be lived in the spirit of upmost happiness and why begrudge them even though we don't quite understand them. The "small" people are the ones who think their world should be the only world and condemn everyone who falls afoul of them. They wear the face of a caring person who is worried that your soul won't pass muster at the pearly gates, but when you refuse to adopt to their own code of morality, they secretly share a gleeful thought of the retribution their lord will put upon you for your perceived callousness towards the good book. Their doctrine is " you are with us or against us". Their religion becomes their power and the wrath of the lord their stick that shall punish the offenders. Because of this big stick that they think they are carrying, they walk around with a smile on their face, but inside delight in the thought the sinners they walk amongst will one day be cast down into the fires of hell. When they support initiatives like this, they feel they are doing you a favor, saving you from yourself and they feel at the moment that have become a "big" person, which is what they have been trying to become or emulate during most of their earthly existence.

Who named you Pontius Pilate for some here that still have morals? For the record, I never stated I hate homosexuals. I simply personally don't agree with their lifestyles, based on my religious upbringings in the Roman Catholic Church.
My opinion.
Throw your stones in your glass house elsewhere.
"Small people"???...Ha!!...All I see is ignorance on your part to what others might believe. Keep an open mind...without condemning those with differing opinions.

[Don]

Written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, speaking about the passions which dishonor God:
Romans 1:26-27
...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, speaking about another passion which dishonors God:

1st Corinthians 14:34

"Let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."

Are women allowed to speak in your church? If so, why are they disobeying God's commands? Muzzle those rebellious bitches and obey the Lord's commands!

My personal belief is that stuff like this is outdated and barbaric. The New Testament also talks about how slaves should be treated. Do you have any slaves? If so, do you treat them according to the commands of the Bible?

I'm just trying to make a point. How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to obey? If you don't obey all of them, how can you expect others to?

You are so right about that. How can you not obey all the parts and still get into heaven. Do you people still think you're going to heaven even though you've tampered with the original meaning of the bible, conveniently glossed over the parts you don't like, decided everyone before you was stupid in their interpretations of the book and you really know what God was saying. If god was cool with slaves back in the day, why the change of heart now? God is all knowing, he knows the future and the past,so why do reinterpretations have to be made with the bible. If there is a GOD, he's probably going to keep your asses down here with us sinners, for not following his book to the letter and trying to create your own revisionist history about his intended message.

[Don]

if we don't agree with their lifestyle we let it pass because we realize they are humans like us, and being creatures of thought and reason, we realize every life should be lived in the spirit of upmost happiness and why begrudge them even though we don't quite understand them. The "small" people are the ones who think their world should be the only world and condemn everyone who falls afoul of them. They wear the face of a caring person who is worried that your soul won't pass muster at the pearly gates, but when you refuse to adopt to their own code of morality, they secretly share a gleeful thought of the retribution their lord will put upon you for your perceived callousness towards the good book. Their doctrine is " you are with us or against us". Their religion becomes their power and the wrath of the lord their stick that shall punish the offenders. Because of this big stick that they think they are carrying, they walk around with a smile on their face, but inside delight in the thought the sinners they walk amongst will one day be cast down into the fires of hell. When they support initiatives like this, they feel they are doing you a favor, saving you from yourself and they feel at the moment that have become a "big" person, which is what they have been trying to become or emulate during most of their earthly existence.

Who named you Pontius Pilate for some here that still have morals? For the record, I never stated I hate homosexuals. I simply personally don't agree with their lifestyles, based on my religious upbringings in the Roman Catholic Church.
My opinion.
Throw your stones in your glass house elsewhere.
"Small people"???...Ha!!...All I see is ignorance on your part to what others might believe. Keep an open mind...without condemning those with differing opinions.

If it offended you, then you are probably one of the small people I was referring to. If you don't fit the description, why get upset about the post. Did it condemn all people of religion? No, it was about a certain type of people that use religion as their bully. If it fits you then so be it.

[Enigma869]

It's a purposefully absurd analogy - society hasn't deemed it fit

Well, you're analogy is just as dopey the second time around. Talking about a pedophile marrying an 8 year old and comparing this to two consenting adults doing what they want to do in their personal lives is moronic! You're equating the two when the two couldn't be more diametrically opposed.

The analogy was made to drive home the point that society can't be right only when it fits your personal convictions/views and wrong whenever it doesn't.

As I stated previously, I don't think this is an issue that people should be voting on. I also believe that because CA decided to put this issue on the ballot, the will of the people should be followed, unless someone presents a legal challenge that the question should have never made its way onto the ballot. I think the high court in CA should hand down a decision that allows for civil unions of some sort that allow for the same rights as married couples. I also don't think those who were legally married in CA should have their marriages not recognized, because the citizens of CA decided their lifestyle didn't make them happy.


John from Boston

[Uno_up]

if we don't agree with their lifestyle we let it pass because we realize they are humans like us, and being creatures of thought and reason, we realize every life should be lived in the spirit of upmost happiness and why begrudge them even though we don't quite understand them. The "small" people are the ones who think their world should be the only world and condemn everyone who falls afoul of them. They wear the face of a caring person who is worried that your soul won't pass muster at the pearly gates, but when you refuse to adopt to their own code of morality, they secretly share a gleeful thought of the retribution their lord will put upon you for your perceived callousness towards the good book. Their doctrine is " you are with us or against us". Their religion becomes their power and the wrath of the lord their stick that shall punish the offenders. Because of this big stick that they think they are carrying, they walk around with a smile on their face, but inside delight in the thought the sinners they walk amongst will one day be cast down into the fires of hell. When they support initiatives like this, they feel they are doing you a favor, saving you from yourself and they feel at the moment that have become a "big" person, which is what they have been trying to become or emulate during most of their earthly existence.

Who named you Pontius Pilate for some here that still have morals? For the record, I never stated I hate homosexuals. I simply personally don't agree with their lifestyles, based on my religious upbringings in the Roman Catholic Church.
My opinion.
Throw your stones in your glass house elsewhere.
"Small people"???...Ha!!...All I see is ignorance on your part to what others might believe. Keep an open mind...without condemning those with differing opinions.

If it offended you, then you are probably one of the small people I was referring to. If you don't fit the description, why get upset about the post. Did it condemn all people of religion? No, it was about a certain type of people that use religion as their bully. If it fits you then so be it.

I believe you were inferring to me and other believers because of your quote, "Their religion becomes their power".
You haven't walked a second in my shoes or others who believe in the power of God. (and no, I'm not a snake handler in the West Virginia hills)
A wise man once said minutes ago, "JUDGE NOT, LEST YOU BE JUDGED".

[Ehwmatt]

The analogy was made to drive home the point that society can't be right only when it fits your personal convictions/views and wrong whenever it doesn't.

As I stated previously, I don't think this is an issue that people should be voting on. I also believe that because CA decided to put this issue on the ballot, the will of the people should be followed, unless someone presents a legal challenge that the question should have never made its way onto the ballot. I think the high court in CA should hand down a decision that allows for civil unions of some sort that allow for the same rights as married couples. I also don't think those who were legally married in CA should have their marriages not recognized, because the citizens of CA decided their lifestyle didn't make them happy.


John from Boston

I honestly don't disagree with you on any of those points John, believe it or not. ... Although I will qualify the high court thing, someone has to bring legal action first of course...

And absolutely, the previously legal marriages should definitely stand. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that no matter where they stand on the issue. That is a question of objective fairness.[/i]

[Voyager]

Written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, speaking about the passions which dishonor God:
Romans 1:26-27
...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, speaking about another passion which dishonors God:

1st Corinthians 14:34

"Let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."

Are women allowed to speak in your church? If so, why are they disobeying God's commands? Muzzle those rebellious bitches and obey the Lord's commands!

My personal belief is that stuff like this is outdated and barbaric. The New Testament also talks about how slaves should be treated. Do you have any slaves? If so, do you treat them according to the commands of the Bible?

I'm just trying to make a point. How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to obey? If you don't obey all of them, how can you expect others to?

Stick to the subject at hand, without hijacking the thread. Start another thread on these matters of interests to you and I will address them accordingly.

Huh? Hijacking the thread? Nice attempt at a diversion, but it ain't working. You were the one that quoted the Bible verse. If you want to discuss the Bible, we can do that. This thread is all about the Bible, because it is the source of 90% of the bigotry against gays. So why not just answer my question... are the women in your church allowed to speak?

[treetopovskaya]

very well said ehwmatt.

'You can't tell someone with a certain set of morals that they have to accept homosexuality as morally neutral or morally equivalent to a heterosexual relationship. That offends them just as much as their beliefs offend you."

so true. }:C)

Again, save this arrogance of "Hey, don't ask me to like or encourage it". I don't think homosexual couples care about your endorsement any more than a heterosexual couple does! Nobody is asking you to "like or encourage" anything. It's not about making everyone happy. It's about offering all human beings the same rights and entitlements and not discriminating for no other reason, other than sexual orientation! As for your last point about shoving an idea, lifestyle, or relationship down someone's throat, I'm not sure I even get your point. I personally haven't interacted with any homosexuals that are attempting to force their way of life on anyone. Just because they are seeking equal rights doesn't mean that their trying to force their way of life on the world. There was a time in this country (and in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't all that long ago) that women were second class citizens and couldn't even vote. Just because the social mores' are the way they are doesn't mean that people shouldn't challenge the conventional thinking. Nothing great has ever happened in this country without people challenging ideas and questioning the establishment. In my opinion, this country shouldn't be one where people believe that if someone doesn't life their life the way they do, they should not have the same rights and entitlements!

John from Boston

If you really think anything in my post was anywhere near approaching arrogant, then you missed the essence of it entirely. The point is, people have to meet in the middle. People with a certain moral set will never say "Ok, great, you're gay, that's a positive trait." People on the far liberal side certainly try and shove the matter down people's throats. You can't tell someone with a certain set of morals that they have to accept homosexuality as morally neutral or morally equivalent to a heterosexual relationship. That offends them just as much as their beliefs offend you.

Most people aren't going to cringe or even worry about being in the very presence of a gay. This isn't 1982 anymore. We've come a long way in that respect. But, many people will never be morally "okay" with homosexual acts, and however looney you might think that sounds, that is their value set. They are allowed to hold those values just as much as you are allowed to hold whatever values you have, as long as they aren't going around beating gays and perpetrating hate.

The bottom line, gays are here to stay, we've come a long way in getting over the ridiculous HIV stereotypes and homophobia (it will always exist, like racism, but more isolated), and it would benefit everyone to exist peacefully and not draw attention to the extreme views on either side.

[treetopovskaya]

let me just say this...

you can't compare being gay with being african american... blacks were once slaves. big difference.

[Don]

if we don't agree with their lifestyle we let it pass because we realize they are humans like us, and being creatures of thought and reason, we realize every life should be lived in the spirit of upmost happiness and why begrudge them even though we don't quite understand them. The "small" people are the ones who think their world should be the only world and condemn everyone who falls afoul of them. They wear the face of a caring person who is worried that your soul won't pass muster at the pearly gates, but when you refuse to adopt to their own code of morality, they secretly share a gleeful thought of the retribution their lord will put upon you for your perceived callousness towards the good book. Their doctrine is " you are with us or against us". Their religion becomes their power and the wrath of the lord their stick that shall punish the offenders. Because of this big stick that they think they are carrying, they walk around with a smile on their face, but inside delight in the thought the sinners they walk amongst will one day be cast down into the fires of hell. When they support initiatives like this, they feel they are doing you a favor, saving you from yourself and they feel at the moment that have become a "big" person, which is what they have been trying to become or emulate during most of their earthly existence.

Who named you Pontius Pilate for some here that still have morals? For the record, I never stated I hate homosexuals. I simply personally don't agree with their lifestyles, based on my religious upbringings in the Roman Catholic Church.
My opinion.
Throw your stones in your glass house elsewhere.
"Small people"???...Ha!!...All I see is ignorance on your part to what others might believe. Keep an open mind...without condemning those with differing opinions.

If it offended you, then you are probably one of the small people I was referring to. If you don't fit the description, why get upset about the post. Did it condemn all people of religion? No, it was about a certain type of people that use religion as their bully. If it fits you then so be it.

I believe you were inferring to me and other believers because of your quote, "Their religion becomes their power".
You haven't walked a second in my shoes or others who believe in the power of God. (and no, I'm not a snake handler in the West Virginia hills)
A wise man once said minutes ago, "JUDGE NOT, LEST YOU BE JUDGED".

But do you beat people over the head with it, From your posts I would think not. If you do, then I was talking to you. I don't know you or anyone on this board. I DO KNOW i have met people out there that I described in my post. I'm not judging you individually as I don't know you.

[Voyager]

let me just say this...

you can't compare being gay with being african american... blacks were once slaves. be difference.

Gays have been shamed, ridiculed, beaten, harassed, condemned, and killed for their sexual orientation. I would say that gays and blacks have more in common than your typical white heterosexual.

[treetopovskaya]

blacks had NO rights. for me it's silly to compare the two.

let me just say this...

you can't compare being gay with being african american... blacks were once slaves. big difference.

Gays have been shamed, ridiculed, beaten, harassed, condemned, and killed for their sexual orientation. I would say that gays and blacks have more in common than your typical white heterosexual.

[Uno_up]

Written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, speaking about the passions which dishonor God:
Romans 1:26-27
...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, speaking about another passion which dishonors God:

1st Corinthians 14:34

"Let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."

Are women allowed to speak in your church? If so, why are they disobeying God's commands? Muzzle those rebellious bitches and obey the Lord's commands!

My personal belief is that stuff like this is outdated and barbaric. The New Testament also talks about how slaves should be treated. Do you have any slaves? If so, do you treat them according to the commands of the Bible?

I'm just trying to make a point. How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to obey? If you don't obey all of them, how can you expect others to?

Stick to the subject at hand, without hijacking the thread. Start another thread on these matters of interests to you and I will address them accordingly.

Huh? Hijacking the thread? Nice attempt at a diversion, but it ain't working. You were the one that quoted the Bible verse. If you want to discuss the Bible, we can do that. This thread is all about the Bible, because it is the source of 90% of the bigotry against gays. So why not just answer my question... are the women in your church allowed to speak?

Here...
Check this page out...it offers differing interpretations as to the meaning of that passage:
http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1127427183.htm

I attended Catholic school for seven years of my life. It was always stressed to not take everything in the Bible verbatim, rather try to grasp the meaning behind the words.

[Voyager]

blacks had NO rights. for me it's silly to compare the two.

The blacks of generations passed had no rights... but the blacks of today have as many rights as the whites do.

[Voyager]

I attended Catholic school for seven years of my life. It was always stressed to not take everything in the Bible verbatim, rather try to grasp the meaning behind the words.

I attended a Catholic school for five years where the religious laws were very strict. Then I went to a Pentecostal church for several years where they took the Bible as the inerrant Word Of God. I saw so much hypocrisy that it turned me competely away from religion. What I saw were people using the Bible as a weapon to beat people into submission with. They were good at telling others how to live their lives and giving them chapter and verse to back it up... but they didn't live by their own rules. They blasted gays with condemning verses only to make themselves feel more holy. When they found out that the worship leader who had been at the church for 18 years was gay, they excommunicated him. Several weeks later he committed suicide. After the pastor heard about it, he told the church that the guy went to hell. That was when I decided that I was done with religion.

[Jana]

So far we're across the whole spectrum on this thread from no tolerance to "Open Arms" with a lot of opinions in the middle. I'm a work in progress. I definitely believe, as I've said before, this is not a choice to be gay. When people on here say it's their CHOICE, does that mean it's my choice to be heterosexual? And if someone told me I had to only be with the same sex in a relationship the rest of my life or I would be ostracized and considered "not moral" in society's eyes, what a tragic way to live your life.

And for a lot of people who say let people do what they want and be with who they want but it's morally wrong in their eyes, it always makes me sad. Because the gay people I have worked with or my good friend that is gay are the most moral people in the world and live productive lives and didn't choose to be the way they are, just like I didn't. Most still live a lie to their parents, even though deep down the parents know, but they can't face the disapproval in their parents' eyes. This is how they live their lives in so many ways, compartmentalized so that they can move up the ladder at work and be accepted.

And yet having said that, if I were to have a child that was gay, it would break my heart at first. I can't deny it, and not just because of the reason it would be a harder life for them, but also there's that part of me that would be a little ashamed to deal with it with family, friends, co-workers, etc, and change the dreams I had for them. And like all things, I would eventually get over that initial feeling and evolve even more. But would I ever think my child had a choice or would I ever want my child to live a lie to make society more comfortable and approving of he or she? Absolutely not. And I would never look at my child and think I "morally" disapprove of who you are because you were born this way.

And yet if I had been born gay, my mother would have been ashamed of me because of how she was brought up and her religious beliefs, but I know she still would have loved me dearly. But how sad that would have been to not feel that pride and approval from her. But I would have understood because of the times she was raised in. And I know she would have eventually accepted it somewhat. Hey, she loved Ellen Degeneres and didn't judge her. Sometimes that's all it takes to change people's beliefs and see things a different way.

[Lula]

i just don't get the desire to deny the opportunity for two consenting adults in love with one another wanting to celebrate their love and make a commitment in marriage. seriously, how does it hurt anyone? gay and lesbian individuals are human beings. as contributors to our society as doctors, lawyers, teachers, clerks, etc are they less than you or i, or any straight person? i think not. our governator, arnold, spoke on the issue today and pointed out that it is not over, he supports same sex marriage.

[Arkansas]

So, in California it was ONLY the 'religious right' that voted for Prop 8 ?


later~

Blacks, for instance, voted 70% to 30% in favor of Prop 8.

Many of them were the religious left though.

I'm glad someone brought this up because the left has a just as active, and perhaps moreso, element of its party that wants religion to interfere with government. If it's wrong on one side, it must also be wrong on the other.

1. Are these protest groups targeting any black organizations? If not, why not?
2. Why all the implication of religion? How many, left or right, non-religious types voted for Prop 8? There had to be at least a few, no?


later~

[Don]

So, in California it was ONLY the 'religious right' that voted for Prop 8 ?


later~

Blacks, for instance, voted 70% to 30% in favor of Prop 8.

Many of them were the religious left though.

I'm glad someone brought this up because the left has a just as active, and perhaps moreso, element of its party that wants religion to interfere with government. If it's wrong on one side, it must also be wrong on the other.

1. Are these protest groups targeting any black organizations? If not, why not?
2. Why all the implication of religion? How many, left or right, non-religious types voted for Prop 8? There had to be at least a few, no?


later~

Their protesting the Mormons because that Church spent 8 million dollars in support of 8. If black, latino ot catholic groups dropped that kind of cash on 8, they would be feeling the heat also.

[Arkansas]

So, in California it was ONLY the 'religious right' that voted for Prop 8 ?


later~

Blacks, for instance, voted 70% to 30% in favor of Prop 8.

Many of them were the religious left though.

I'm glad someone brought this up because the left has a just as active, and perhaps moreso, element of its party that wants religion to interfere with government. If it's wrong on one side, it must also be wrong on the other.

1. Are these protest groups targeting any black organizations? If not, why not?
2. Why all the implication of religion? How many, left or right, non-religious types voted for Prop 8? There had to be at least a few, no?


later~

Their protesting the Mormons because that Church spent 8 million dollars in support of 8. If black, latino ot catholic groups dropped that kind of cash on 8, they would be feeling the heat also.

Well, point is, a vote is a vote...if it cost a mill or just gas to the polls. By targeting the big money, they're basically admitting jealousy. They are claiming that big money won the vote. Therefore, if they'd had that money, then they would have won the vote. But another point is, they'll never have that kind of financial clout, regardless of what celebrity backs them...and so, they cry sour grapes. More to the question, I bet they're fighting insecurity even ever more. The law was the law and they felt stepped on. The state Supreme Court stepped in and helped their cause. (probably knowing full well it'd be voted out, but at least the court isn't politically damaged, so they wash their hands.) The state of California, as liberal as any, came back to the vote with a resounding NO WAY. And once again, the gay minority feels stepped-on.

Boo - f'ing -hoo. It's called democracy. You wanna start some backlash war? Target every voter. Get it changed next around.



later~

[journel]

i voted yes on prop 8...yes won...democracy rules...the people of california had spoken...case closed!

[RossValoryRocks]

i just don't get the desire to deny the opportunity for two consenting adults in love with one another wanting to celebrate their love and make a commitment in marriage. seriously, how does it hurt anyone? gay and lesbian individuals are human beings. as contributors to our society as doctors, lawyers, teachers, clerks, etc are they less than you or i, or any straight person? i think not. our governator, arnold, spoke on the issue today and pointed out that it is not over, he supports same sex marriage.

CHEER!

I don't agree with the lifestyle...but whom am I to deny anyone any freedom?

[Lula]

you got my vote stu

[annpea]

So, in California it was ONLY the 'religious right' that voted for Prop 8 ?


later~

Blacks, for instance, voted 70% to 30% in favor of Prop 8.

Many of them were the religious left though.

I'm glad someone brought this up because the left has a just as active, and perhaps moreso, element of its party that wants religion to interfere with government. If it's wrong on one side, it must also be wrong on the other.

1. Are these protest groups targeting any black organizations? If not, why not?
2. Why all the implication of religion? How many, left or right, non-religious types voted for Prop 8? There had to be at least a few, no?


later~

It's hard for some people to get past, the fire and brimstone up bringing, that have church members believing that just breathing will send them to hell;according to some of my (Southern Missionary Baptist) family I am the offical door greeter to hell,This because I just can't blindly follow everything they think is right, I believe being Gay is not always a personal choice and the church is the last group of people to be judging anyone.
I discovered while taking biology and A&P; at conception. during a 5 week gestation period the gonads of both males and females begin development, at the mesonephric stage the embryo goes into a (sexually indifferent stage), basically at this point the gonadal ridge tissue develop into either male or female, shortly after that chemical signals come into play determining what will be ( male or female) I believe it is within this stage that a homeostatic imbalance occurs ( An interference with the normal pattern of sexual hormone production in the embryo) I feel that whatever happens to cause some people to be gay most likely as not occurs during this transferring of sexual hormones stage; a chemical signal that possibly doesn't trigger correctly ( by our standards but just prefectly fine by Gods standards) occurs. I do feel as well that there are some people who experiment with alternative lifestyles but they often as not return to a hetero lifestyle at some point. Can someone show me in the bible where it states that marriage is to be only between a man and a woman( I'm serious).

[Rick]

I think someone said earlier in this thread that marriage is of and by the church in it's origin. I guess that's why it's clung to so tightly by those types of people. But then they'll go out and sin like a bitch on the weekend.

[Voyager]

I think someone said earlier in this thread that marriage is of and by the church in it's origin. I guess that's why it's clung to so tightly by those types of people. But then they'll go out and sin like a bitch on the weekend.

From Yahoo Answers:

Marriage has been around since before recorded history (which means before the Bible was written). One obvious reason for it was the creation of offspring. But a far more important reason for marriage was the cementing of alliances. Difficulties abounded in the ancient world, and the more allies you had the safer you were. Marriages were the prefered method for sealing alliances between families, clans, tribes, and ultimately nations.

The idea of marriage based on romantic love is actually a relatively recent innovation. The true purpose of marriage throughout the ages was advancement of family (clan, national -- whatever) interest. That's why throughout history most marriages were arranged. There was no romance or love involved -- this was business.

Apparently the religious groups don't have any rights to ownership of the institution of marriage. Therefore they should keep their noses out of it and mind their own business.

[Rick]

I think someone said earlier in this thread that marriage is of and by the church in it's origin. I guess that's why it's clung to so tightly by those types of people. But then they'll go out and sin like a bitch on the weekend.

From Yahoo Answers:

Marriage has been around since before recorded history (which means before the Bible was written). One obvious reason for it was the creation of offspring. But a far more important reason for marriage was the cementing of alliances. Difficulties abounded in the ancient world, and the more allies you had the safer you were. Marriages were the prefered method for sealing alliances between families, clans, tribes, and ultimately nations.

The idea of marriage based on romantic love is actually a relatively recent innovation. The true purpose of marriage throughout the ages was advancement of family (clan, national -- whatever) interest. That's why throughout history most marriages were arranged. There was no romance or love involved -- this was business.

Apparently the religious groups don't have any rights to ownership of the institution of marriage. Therefore they should keep their noses out of it and mind their own business.

I need to read that to my wife.

[Voyager]

But a far more important reason for marriage was the cementing of alliances. Difficulties abounded in the ancient world, and the more allies you had the safer you were.

This should apply to gay people.

[Skylorde]

I'm not crazy about the idea of letting gays marry however you'll be hard pressed to make a constitutional arugment as to why it should be banned.

It's that simple really