[sportscrazy]

It means you aprove of women marrying women, and men marrying men!
Yes, I do approve of it (I'm not gay) because I believe that everyone should have their personal choice. If we don't give them that choice we're not treating them like they're human, and everyone should be treated the same.

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

What I meant by that is it was instituted to be between Man and Woman not Man and man or Woman and Woman. It was clearly that way for over 4000 years according to the Bible or even the Torah. But hey whatever like Deh says it was likely to happen!

I don't think your "4000" years argument is correct or accurate. (Aren't there a few important people in the Bible whom had more than one wife? King Solomon comes to mind?...)

But if we were to use that kind of reasoning,...

SLAVERY was cool for a pretty long time! Maybe we should bring that back?

And so was state sponsored religion (ONE church).

And NO RIGHTS for women!...

Things change, times change, and society changes. Pointing to the past as a reason to do something, isn't always wise, as you can see above. What may have been "good" at one time, is not necessarily good at another. (LOW prices on heating oil is GREAT in the winter time, and MEANINGLESS in the summer,...)

thanks,
J

[sportscrazy]

But on the other hand human reproduction could be in danger if everyone had same sex marriages....so I'm not really sure....

[deh]

Originally Posted by sportscrazy

But on the other hand human reproduction could be in danger if everyone had same sex marriages....so I'm not really sure....

LOL I don't think the human race will be in jeopardy. I'm pretty sure the heterosexual men will still like women and vice versa if such a law were passed.

I mean sometimes i prefer the company of men but that is for watching football, beer chugging and belching contests.

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by deh

actually HE said they would claim to be the "correct one".


"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravaging wolves"

and that is just one of the times he mentions it, if you would like i can post more.

So who's to say that THEY weren't correct and it is YOU whom is not?

I don't think that necessarily, but I can argue the point, because it brings up a valid concern, and shows how EVERY religion, ultimately boils down to "faith".

It clairifies the "unknown" quality of following faith, which is glossed over everytime claims are made that to the effect of "morality comes from my religion, and my religion is THE correct one!"

see the dilema?

[deh]

not really the Bible condemns "men lying with men"; you can't pick and choose. Well i guess you could but you might as well write your own book to follow if you do that.

I believe not by a church but by the grace of God we can be saved. There is not a true single religion although sometimes it seems the Catholics think differently. AS i said are gays condemned to hell? I don't know i am not a judge but i must follow what the Bible says.

[jmosmith]

Fair enough.

But the Bible does NOT say to deny Freedom and Equality to others, and Jesus DID give an example of respecting the beliefs of others; of NOT imposing himself or his beliefs upon them.

night.
J

[deh]

Very true and i am tolerant of others. Love thy neighbor and let God sort them out.

And yes Jesus actually absolved us from many old Jewish laws and customs so I don't even have to take the Levitical commandment by means of which sex should be between man and woman. Corinthians states so.

and i don't have to take into account that marriage is between a man and woman from Genesis for Jesus says its so (reestablishes this):

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"
-Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

I don't think your "4000" years argument is correct or accurate. (Aren't there a few important people in the Bible whom had more than one wife? King Solomon comes to mind?...)

But if we were to use that kind of reasoning,...

SLAVERY was cool for a pretty long time! Maybe we should bring that back?

And so was state sponsored religion (ONE church).

And NO RIGHTS for women!...

Things change, times change, and society changes. Pointing to the past as a reason to do something, isn't always wise, as you can see above. What may have been "good" at one time, is not necessarily good at another. (LOW prices on heating oil is GREAT in the winter time, and MEANINGLESS in the summer,...)

thanks,
J

I am not talking about more then one Wife. I am strictly talking about taking a Man to be your wife or a Woman to be your Husband (Man that sounds weird ). Basically in a Marriage you are a Husband and A wife as per the Law but they are changing that to between two Persons! Another Thing I don't get is this why can't the Government just give the Same Sex Couple the Benefits of Being Married? Do they have to be married and on top of that by a Church (That more then anything Ruffles my Feathers) Not saying I Evolved from a Bird

[jonasdatum]

Originally Posted by bizzt

I am not talking about more then one Wife. I am strictly talking about taking a Man to be your wife or a Woman to be your Husband (Man that sounds weird ). Basically in a Marriage you are a Husband and A wife as per the Law but they are changing that to between two Persons! Another Thing I don't get is this why can't the Government just give the Same Sex Couple the Benefits of Being Married? Do they have to be married and on top of that by a Church (That more then anything Ruffles my Feathers) Not saying I Evolved from a Bird

"Social constructs!" That's the short answer to your question. The version is religion. If you ask most people why they are apposed to marriage of people of the same sex, they would it is wrong! If you expand on it most will say "it's against god." Well as I've stated many times, if God gave a flying crap, he could have just made us primative primates and written physical evolution as a "bad idea."

There is nothing "wrong" with two people of the same sex being married. Keep in mind right and wrong are social concepts. Remember when blacks were considered at most 3/5 a man. Yet many slave owners were having intercourse with their primative slave females [and I am quite sure they had a few male on male stuff too].

The human race needs to grow up. Not to slide off topic to much, we could solve many of the worlds problems, but we chose not to because of our animal/primative/selfish nature(s). Bush is against Gay marraige, but why not be against porn, prositution [legal in one or two areas of the US], and smoking. Smoking isn't a healthy habit, but nobody tries to stop that. In terms of physical health it is wrong, but people have the right to kill them selves slowing in this country. But if I wanted to take shot gun a blow my brains out in front of police, they would call it insanity!

[angelize56]

Gay Divorces Follow Marriages in Mass.
U.S. National - AP
By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Less than seven months after same-sex couples began tying the knot in Massachusetts, the state is seeing its first gay divorces.

Newlyweds seeking to renounce the vows they so recently took have been trickling into probate courts across the state, filling out obsolete forms that still read "husband" and "wife."

Josh Friedes, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Freedom to Marry Coalition, said the rapid divorces are no cause for concern.

"It would be wonderful if every marriage lasted until a couple lived to a ripe old age, but unfortunately we know from our heterosexual peers that all too often there are irrconcilable differences, and for these couples, divorce is often the most humane option," Friedes said. "Anyone who argues that gay and lesbian couples divorcing is grounds for opposing gay marriage is being incredibly hypocritical."

Exactly how many same-sex couples are seeking divorces is not clear — nor is it clear whether any gay divorces have become final — because not all counties keep track of which divorce filings are from gays.

The first gay divorce case in Suffolk County, which includes Boston, was filed Wednesday by a male couple who exchanged vows on May 22, five days after same-sex marriage was legalized.

One partner was a 33-year-old religious educator from Boston, the other a 39-year-old professor based in Washington. Since then, the couple said in their divorce filing, "our interests have grown in different directions." Each man signed a settlement attesting that the marriage had "irretrievably broken down."

The most difficult part of the settlement appeared to be custody of their three cats, who will live exclusively with the professor.

But "in recognition of the emotional hardship of such relinquishment," the settlement reads, the professor agreed to provide his ex "with periodic updates, photographs, and any health-related information pertaining" to the cats.

Massachusetts began sanctioning gay marriages on May 17, six months after a landmark ruling by the state Supreme Court.

According to the state Registry of Vital Records, at least 4,266 gay marriage certificates have since been issued, although there is a lag time in the records and hundreds more may have wed this year.

Hampshire County reporting a divorce filing within about two months of the first gay weddings.

Middlesex County, which is the state's largest and includes Cambridge, Lowell and other outlying communities, received its first gay divorce case on Dec. 2, involving a 38-year-old woman who works for a cleaning business, and a 27-year-old student. The older woman sought the divorce, citing "cruel and abusive treatment" during the three months of marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage said the divorces, occurring so soon after the weddings, confirm that gay couples are not equipped for marriage.

"We're not surprised," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "Particularly among male homosexuals, the promiscuity is just phenomenal."

With the national divorce rate hovering near 50 percent, gay rights advocates dismissed such arguments.

"That's a cheap shot," said gay rights attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented seven gay couples in the landmark Massachusetts lawsuit.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Opponents of gay marriage said the divorces, occurring so soon after the weddings, confirm that gay couples are not equipped for marriage.

"We're not surprised," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "Particularly among male homosexuals, the promiscuity is just phenomenal."

...right...because straight couples never get divorced after a couple months...

[angelize56]

Hi Gibby! It's Friday night...why aren't you out having fun somewhere???

[ComputerFix]

"We're not surprised," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "Particularly among male homosexuals, the promiscuity is just phenomenal."

Which is precisely why we should DISCOURAGE monogamous relationship tools! What better way to curb promiscuity!

This is why I call "BS" on these folks...gays were "frowned upon" for promiscuous behavior and the minute some seek legal recognition of monogamy, the same people are right there talking out of the other side of their mouth. The hypocrisy is downright frightening.

Face it, the "promiscuity" stats for people in general aren't that wonderful (reasons for your own choosing, from "more sex" to "just willing to admit it")....so why push for anything that promotes it if it is an issue to be addressed. Answer: They just don't like gays, don't want them on equal footing, want "them" to stay "them".

This whole issue reads like a banner headline for "purity for the greater good". Wonder if there is a guy with a funny mustache leading the charge......

What nobody seems to realize (or they do) is that there is no legal basis for denying legal recognition of these relationships so every slanderous and skewed "stat" is pulled out of the woodwork. What next? A book talking about how gays are mentally inferior to straight people?

[jmosmith]

Computerfix