Talk about a small minority of the population taking up a huge amount of resources on this debate. What's the big deal. Let them have their 'marriage'....who is it going to hurt. I don't understand the massive opposition. If the homophobes are worried about righteous people's exposure to homosexuality....we are all certainly being overexposed by this continuing debate. They've wasted more tax dollars and resources debating and fighting it than it will ever cost.
I do not condone homosexuality, in fact it makes me want to puke. However I still don't see what the big deal is. It is their lives. I'm sick of having it shoved in my face with this debate.
That's the key Danny. No one should care. However, as typical a few think they have the right to force their personal preferences under the guise of morality (neither of which they have a right to push) on others.
Morality CAN NOT be legislated. Never could be, never will.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 10, 2009, 12:02:47 AM
That's the key Danny. No one should care. However, as typical a few think they have the right to force their personal preferences under the guise of morality (neither of which they have a right to push) on others.
Kind of like how some of you guys push your agenda on this forum under the guise of facts and truth??????????
Are they facts and truth? If so.....what's the agenda? To promote facts and truth?
First of all, I'm against the gay lifestyle as much as I'm against husbands and wives who cheat on each other or any sexual immorality...It is MY personal belief, that this is just another cancer of our society...
with THAT said...as a Christian, I am and do, love all my neighbors....despite the sin.....we ALL have them.....and I agree with Pa, laws cannot change what is in peoples hearts...I know that many gays are as sincere with their partners as many straight people....it is the flamboyant, deviant sexually immoral freaks (for a lack of a better word), that I find repulsive...the Bible is quite clear that sexual immorality (gays or straight) is wrong...and Marriage is sacred....being that I am protected by our Constitution to have freedom of religion...I am free to practice my beliefs, based upon the Bible..which I dearly hold sacred...
I am simply TRYING to state MY beliefs...the Bible says:
1 Cor. 7:2. ... each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Heb. 13:4. Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure...
I just do not like the word "marriage" for gay couples because I think that this word should be reserved for a woman- man connection....as my Bible tells me....for me to NOT stand for this, would be unconscionable
I am not against relationships of gays, life partnership and legal tax equality and all the support a married couple should have....I honestly DO realize that my personal beliefs cannot be SHOVED down others throats.... but marriage SHOULD be protected for and man and a woman..... Same sex marriage ... well, THAT IS A BIG DEAL TO ME... :yes:
Quote from: pariann on April 10, 2009, 08:45:05 AM
Are they facts and truth? If so.....what's the agenda? To promote facts and truth?
BRAVO!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Bo D on April 10, 2009, 09:24:19 AM
BRAVO!!!!!!!!
You will notice that I said "In The Guise of Truth And Facts"
Quote from: mcgonser on April 10, 2009, 09:28:07 AM
You will notice that I said "In The Guise of Truth And Facts"
Was I speaking to you?
;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 10, 2009, 09:16:10 AM
I just do not like the word "marriage" for gay couples because I think that this word should be reserved for a woman- man connection....as my Bible tells me....for me to NOT stand for this, would be unconscionable
But certainly you understand that passing any law based on your belief is nothing other than the government endorcing and enforcing a religious view?
As far as the word 'marriage' being sacred because of its use in the bible that's absolute bullshit because the word didn't exist in any language when the bible was written.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 10, 2009, 09:39:30 AM
But certainly you understand that passing any law based on your belief is nothing other than the government endorcing and enforcing a religious view?
As far as the word 'marriage' being sacred because of its use in the bible that's absolute bullshit because the word didn't exist in any language when the bible was written.
Nisueen is the hebrew word USED in the Bible...for marriage.....marriage is implied several times throughout the Bible...the word marriage IS a Kings James verison of ALL the implications in the Bible where it directs a covenant between a man and a woman...
Quote from: mcgonser on April 10, 2009, 09:28:07 AM
You will notice that I said "In The Guise of Truth And Facts"
I noticed you used that word, but the question still is.....is it facts and truth. Because if what is shown/discussed is backed up by facts and truth, then the agenda is to promote just that.......why would anyone have a problem with becoming educated with facts and truth?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 10, 2009, 10:06:01 AM
Nisueen is the hebrew word USED in the Bible...for marriage.....marriage is implied several times throughout the Bible...the word marriage IS a Kings James verison of ALL the implications in the Bible where it directs a covenant between a man and a woman...
If the original bible was written in hebrew and nisueen is the word used in that text, one
might be able to make a case for the sanctity of that word but to make a case for the sanctity of every word in every language into which the bible has been translated is absurd.
Quote from: Bo D on April 10, 2009, 09:31:09 AM
Was I speaking to you?
You need to specify who you are talking too. I know why don't you go to instant messages or something like that and talk privately. When you post something publicly(duh) it becomes public domain. Get off my back BO!
Quote from: mcgonser on April 10, 2009, 11:17:22 AM
You need to specify who you are talking too. I know why don't you go to instant messages or something like that and talk privately. When you post something publicly(duh) it becomes public domain. Get off my back BO!
Touchy, aren't we? Does your browser not show the little wink in my post .... like this ... ?
;)
mcgonser: Now you have a problem with someone responding to a specific poster? Public or not, he clearly wasn't responding to you, and stated so.
He didn't tell you to go somewhere else to respond.
Quote from: Bo D on April 10, 2009, 11:28:32 AM
Touchy, aren't we? Does your browser not show the little wink in my post .... like this ... ?
;)
Apparently he overlooked the quote of your previous response that indicated who you were specifically responding to.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 10, 2009, 10:27:54 AM
If the original bible was written in hebrew and nisueen is the word used in that text, one might be able to make a case for the sanctity of that word but to make a case for the sanctity of every word in every language into which the bible has been translated is absurd.
I am responding with an answer, strictly based upon my view....but marriage, as described throughtout the KJV Bible...is a life long commitment or covenant between a man and a woman...
the term...marriage...has a long history with American roots (I know it goes WAY much deeper)...our forefathers, was raised with MARRIAGE as an extremely sacred event.....up until the last few decades...a marriage WAS take extremely serious and truly was a lifelong commitment...
I feel, that it has already been very tarnished, with divorces being done as easy and simple as getting your drivers licence...
I believe it IS a Sanctified commitment.....and if should ALWAYS be revered that way...but is seems that NOTHING is sacred anymore...and THAT is
part of our problems today.
You can't arbitrarily decide for everyone that certain words are sacred simply because your religion's book says they are.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 10, 2009, 11:44:38 AM
You can't arbitrarily decide for everyone that certain words are sacred simply because your religion's book says they are.
I'm not..just stating an opinion....but, we have a rich history to support it
C'mon Ex, peppered throughout all his posts, he is making the claim it's his belief, explaining his feelings, I don't see him deciding for everyone else what words are sacred, only for himself. In this case, I believe, you are exaggerating his posting intent.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 10, 2009, 11:46:30 AM
I'm not..just stating an opinion....but, we have a rich history to support it
We had a rich history supporting blacks and women not voting too but we abandoned it...times change.
Quote from: pariann on April 10, 2009, 11:47:37 AM
C'mon Ex, peppered throughout all his posts, he is making the claim it's his belief, explaining his feelings, I don't see him deciding for everyone else what words are sacred, only for himself. In this case, I believe, you are exaggerating his posting intent.
Not even close because while he does state over and over that those are his beliefs, he also supports legislation that make those beliefs law.
People support all kinds of things without outwardly trying to make others believe in them.
I support that we shouldn't have a full time military, but I don't go around pushing that feeling/opinion on everyone else. (I know that's out of left field, it's just an example.)
Quote from: Exterminator on April 10, 2009, 11:49:30 AM
Not even close because while he does state over and over that those are his beliefs, he also supports legislation that make those beliefs law.
and you support legislation based upon YOUR beliefs.........are you TRYING to shove YOUR beliefs down MY throat? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bo D on April 10, 2009, 11:28:32 AM
Touchy, aren't we? Does your browser not show the little wink in my post .... like this ... ?
;)
This is what I was thinking of. Wish I had found it earlier ....
http://www.eventsounds.com/wav/tlkn2me.wav (http://www.eventsounds.com/wav/tlkn2me.wav)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 10, 2009, 12:06:50 PM
and you support legislation based upon YOUR beliefs.........are you TRYING to shove YOUR beliefs down MY throat? :rolleyes:
Uh, no but nice try. Supporting no legislation that would limit the rights of those different than myself is not the same as supporting legislation that requires it. What we have here is another perfect example of your wanting the government to stay out of our lives
except when doing do offends your religious beliefs.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 10, 2009, 01:33:33 PM
Uh, no but nice try. Supporting no legislation that would limit the rights of those different than myself is not the same as supporting legislation that requires it. What we have here is another perfect example of your wanting the government to stay out of our lives except when doing do offends your religious beliefs.
THAT is a STRETCH...okay for you NOT to believe...but wrong for me TO believe in a particular legislation...
the people of 46 states feel the same as I do.....it is NOT like I am out campaigning or lobbying for this.....if asked, I will tell how I feel....the people of this land, for now, feel it is NOT is in their States best interest to allow same sex marriage.
maybe it is more of their upbringing, than it is religion....it is who WANT same sex marriage are the ones who are chastising Christians.....and, remember as Christians have every right to vote as they feel...THAT IS in our Constitution..
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 10, 2009, 02:13:07 PM
THAT is a STRETCH...okay for you NOT to believe...but wrong for me TO believe in a particular legislation...
Let me try to make this simple enough for even you to understand...
When no law is passed restricting a certain group's right to do something, no one's rights are denied nor is anyone harmed. Allowing same sex marriage has no effect on your ability to chose not to marry someone of the same sex nor does it in any way infringe on or change traditional marriages in any way. No one gets hurt.
On the other hand, when a law is passed restricting a certain group's right to do something, that groups rights are directly infringed upon, in this case, for no other reason than they have a different sexual orientation. They are directly harmed by a law that is entirely based on discrimination against them because they are different.
That is the difference between our two positions...my position of doing nothing harms no one, yours harms a particular group of people.
Quotethe people of 46 states feel the same as I do.....it is NOT like I am out campaigning or lobbying for this.....if asked, I will tell how I feel....the people of this land, for now, feel it is NOT is in their States best interest to allow same sex marriage.
It's obvious to me that you hold a great deal of contempt for our Constitution and our system of government but the original intent was to eliminate the possibility of tyranny by the majority meaning that it really doesn't matter how people in how many states are for or against this; they have no right to make that decision for everyone. That is precisely why it lost a Constitutional challenge last week in Iowa.
Quotemaybe it is more of their upbringing, than it is religion....it is who WANT same sex marriage are the ones who are chastising Christians.....and, remember as Christians have every right to vote as they feel...THAT IS in our Constitution.
Garbage. The entire argument is framed around the sanctity of the word 'marriage' drawn from biblical references.
Ex, here's the problem as HH and so many others like him see it.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2evg7sh.jpg)
That evil homosexual aura emanating from the gay marriage couple goes and gets in between the marriage of the heterosexual Christian couple. This can cause all sorts of bad things to happen. Their children may become drug dealers, prostitutes, or heaven forbid, even HOMOSEXUALS themselves. :spooked:
:biggrin: :biggrin:
:rolleyes:
:razz:
It's true isn't it? ;D
Quote from: Locutus on April 10, 2009, 04:20:15 PM
:razz:
It's true isn't it? ;D
you obviously have not read any of my posts....
Oh, trust me, I have. :yes:
The problem is that neither you, nor any like you who would so willingly infringe on the rights of others, can come up with any concrete explanation for denying said rights to the homosexual segment of the population.
The picture I posted was poking fun at that fact. :wink:
You know, I believe in God, (so shoot me), but I don't have a problem with it. I have not yet figured out how same sex marriage devalues heterosexual marriage. Marriage is an institution between two people who want to commit their lives to one another. Just because Tom and Harry down the street get married, it's not going to stop Bob and Sue from getting married. Unless Bob or Sue have been lying about their orientation. If that's the case, then their marriage would have been a fraud anyway.
I have come to the conclusion....if you are not a Christian...you just do/can/won't understand....
it all has to do with ...SOME things have GOT to stay sacred.....there has GOT to be some sacred structure...
ah, it really don't make a hill of beans if I, explain it or not... :no:..not going to change any minds...
with THAT said,
Folks, ol henry is heading north for a wonderful Easter Weekend!!..
I hope all of you have a splendid weekend!... :)
Quote from: Bo D on April 10, 2009, 11:28:32 AM
Touchy, aren't we? Does your browser not show the little wink in my post .... like this ... ?
;)
Oooops, I see it now. Excuuuuuse Me, ok?
I disagree henry. I am Christian....have been all 55 years of my life. I see nothing wrong with 2 guys wanting to get "married". they are not hurting anyone, they just want to be happy like all "in Love" couples and unite themselves as one. What is so wrong with that?
You're going to get chapter and verse now. :wink:
You know him so well! :yes: ;D
yes, but I still love him....as a brother....on the internet. :biggrin:
oh well....his beliefs are his...mine are mine. I am a big girl...I can take it.
Got to go with the EX on this one.
For so many to claim 'sanctitiy' is BS. How many people get married in the courthouse??? How many people get married in a church by a minister, but yet they could give two shits about the church and possibly never go back there. I'm pretty sure many athiests and agnostics are married.....should they be denied that opportunity?
I don't know EX or Locutus (sorry to call you out), but if they are married or have ever been married before....I'm confident they didn't do so to consecrate a holy-religious-experience. Should they not be allowed to get married? Hell, they might even want to marry each other..... :biggrin: :biggrin:....and that should be OK.
It's time to let this one go....it is inevitable....resistance is futile and wasted effort.
:spooked:
You did NOT!!
And on a side note, I was married first in my first ex mother in laws living room, and second in a pawn shop. Guess I missed out on the sanctity. (By the way, the second marriage lasted 20 years.)
Just wondering, how many of you have actually asked gay couples about the marriage laws? In this day and age many "straight" people are choosing not to marry because they can get most or all of the benefits of a married couple. The gay couples I know worry more about the next of kin type of thing than the actual "marriage" ceremony.
Quote from: Anne on April 11, 2009, 11:44:19 AM
In this day and age many "straight" people are choosing not to marry because they can get most or all of the benefits of a married couple.
Can they file a joint tax return?
No they can't and neither can cohabiting adults either as far as I know. Maybe that is something that should be fixed like the insurance of significant others or life partners. If marriage is so irrelevant, why don't we just pass a law stating that life partners (feel free to fill in any appropriate term) can be legally entitled to the benefits of a married couple. That would fix things for a lot of people, not just gays, like the elderly couple down the street from me who will not marry because she will lose her insurance. It seems to me IMO that there are many ways to fix the situation without getting into the traditional marriage fight.
Quote from: DannyBoy on April 09, 2009, 10:10:43 PM
Talk about a small minority of the population taking up a huge amount of resources on this debate. What's the big deal. Let them have their 'marriage'....who is it going to hurt. I don't understand the massive opposition. If the homophobes are worried about righteous people's exposure to homosexuality....we are all certainly being overexposed by this continuing debate. They've wasted more tax dollars and resources debating and fighting it than it will ever cost.
I do not condone homosexuality, in fact it makes me want to puke. However I still don't see what the big deal is. It is their lives. I'm sick of having it shoved in my face with this debate.
I think its the right-wing, married women. They fear that if their men see openly gay relationships, they will lose all those guys to another (vis a vis, Larry Craig, et al). Or, it could be that right-wing married women secretly are so drawn to other women, an openly accepting society for gays would lead them into the arms of another woman. Either way, its obvious that right-wingers are so insecure in their own sexuality, they will switch sides at the drop of a hat (or the drop of the same sex's pants).
However, I think it is a big deal. The state should not be sanctioning same sex marriages anymore than they should be sanctioning heterosexual marriages. The right's argument is that they want marriage protected by law and their definition of marriage is solely on the basis of a religious one. So, marriage IS a religious institution the state has no business ESTABLISHING.
So, get the state out of marriage, NOW. Two adults should enter a Civil Union; a contract with all the legal rights afforded it (property, visitation, etc). Those goofballs that want a chruch wedding, jump over a broom, or kill a chicken and drink its blood should have nothing to do with the rest of us; the state. No legal recognition of marriage, period
Dan, what would the states do without the money from the marriage liscense sales. It is also a way to help keep a census of your state. Who the states decide to sell these liscenses too is their business. Man without this money they might have to put up a lemonade stand or something. Shame on you!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: mcgonser on April 12, 2009, 05:39:32 PM
Dan, what would the states do without the money from the marriage liscense sales.
Perhaps the states could replace this income with incorporation fees. Or limited liability partnership fees. I find it hard to believe government would become impoverished if it couldn't sell marriage licenses. They could always insist that we buy the equivalent of dog licenses for our children.
Maybe those kid licenses could REPLACE dog licenses; a lot of dogs I know are better behaved than many children!
Welcome to our little corner of the asylum, LOsborne. :biggrin:
Quote from: Ma and Pa on April 12, 2009, 06:18:39 PM
Welcome to our little corner of the asylum, LOsborne. :biggrin:
Thank you so much. Tell me, I believe I have found the area dedicated to screaming and hair-pulling, but where are the refreshments?
Right here:
http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=2470.0
:biggrin: :beers:
Quote from: mcgonser on April 12, 2009, 05:39:32 PM
Dan, what would the states do without the money from the marriage liscense sales. It is also a way to help keep a census of your state. Who the states decide to sell these liscenses too is their business. Man without this money they might have to put up a lemonade stand or something. Shame on you!!!!!!!!!
I guess you missed that whole Civil Unions contract thing. You will still need a license for those and there will be many more of those than the current goofy marriage licenses. Geez.
What's the difference? Sounds to me like a civil union would be exactly the same as a marriage.......so why would there be more of them than marriages? People marry out of commitment. A civil union would still be a commitment. So....what is the difference?
Quote from: smokeykat on April 10, 2009, 08:18:06 PM
I disagree henry. I am Christian....have been all 55 years of my life. I see nothing wrong with 2 guys wanting to get "married". they are not hurting anyone, they just want to be happy like all "in Love" couples and unite themselves as one. What is so wrong with that?
Well, I'm not going to preach or pull out any verses.....maybe I'm just old fashion...but, those words in the Bible DO mean something to me....God is clear about what a marriage SHOULD be....and I believe Him.
I think IF we would follow the word of God, the way He means it, we would NOT have the troubles we are facing in this world...such as divorces, drugs, child abuse and on and on.
Hey, like i have said before, I do NOT have ANY hatred towards two people of the same sex who "love" each other...I just feel that..marriage IS a sacred event, between a man and a woman....period....not going to change my mind about this....EVER.
Quote from: pariann on April 13, 2009, 07:48:17 AM
... a civil union would be exactly the same as a marriage.......so why would there be more of them than marriages?
Because civil unions would not exclude same sex contracts. Therefor, the customer pool to which these licenses are marketed is larger.
Well you can call it a civil union, but ask two people who are involved in the same sex union what they call it, and they will say they are 'married'. I hear Ellen saying it all the time. She calls Portia her wife........wonder what Portia calls Ellen?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 13, 2009, 08:13:49 AM
Well, I'm not going to preach or pull out any verses.....maybe I'm just old fashion...but, those words in the Bible DO mean something to me....God is clear about what a marriage SHOULD be....and I believe Him.
I think IF we would follow the word of God, the way He means it, we would NOT have the troubles we are facing in this world...such as divorces, drugs, child abuse and on and on.
Hey, like i have said before, I do NOT have ANY hatred towards two people of the same sex who "love" each other...I just feel that..marriage IS a sacred event, between a man and a woman....period....not going to change my mind about this....EVER.
Careful Hank. . . Doesn't that same book require a wife to be subservient to her husband?
That is going to get you crossways of a majority of the females I know! :wink: :biggrin:
Welcome Back PH ;D
Quote from: Palehorse on April 13, 2009, 10:17:06 AM
Careful Hank. . . Doesn't that same book require a wife to be subservient to her husband? That is going to get you crossways of a majority of the females I know! :wink: :biggrin:
;D...you are RIGHT about that.. :yes:..but, if you really read what it says...though the wife is submit themselves unto their husbands...the husband is to his wife above all other human beings...they are to be as ONE...AND THAT is the beautiful part of...a Biblical Marriage....it goes into great detail of how a man and wife are to work together as one....and I think, if it was done as taught....it would have eliminated many of the problems our society faces today.
so I am NOT trying to get 'crossways' with you ladies out there....just making an observation...(thaks PH.. ;) ;D
No offense here Henry: I try not to argue about God's meaning or instruction for Christians. The bible also entails the responsibilities of the husband to his wife. It is beautiful reading and I believe in the God's laws of marriage.
I have to somewhat agree with Dan's perspective on this one. Government has ZERO business declaring a union of same sex individuals right or wrong from a religious aspect. They should remain separate as intended.
This being said, what is the problem with a civil ceremony undertaken to "legalize" a partnership amongst two individuals that happen to be of the same sex? Is it any less meaningful, does it not demonstrate commitment in much the same way as a religious ceremony is intended. Does it not carry the "promise" to each other?
It does, and in fact many traditional couples choose this venue over religious venues; always have and always will.
Many employers already recognize "significant others" and extend health, life insurance benefits to these couples; both traditional and alternative. Even without the "legalization" of it whether religious or civil.
I also agree with Dannyboy, the never ending debate needs to stop. Government should step to the plate, tell the zealots to get out of government, and officially recognize same sex civil unions/ceremonies.
As to the question of whether it is wrong or right, is it not between the practitioners and the creator in the first place? The only real objections are based upon fear mongering and opinions formed from a book of letters written and edited by humankind.
Who among us can prove that anything the creator has constructed was wrong or a mistake? Isn't that what you are saying when you tell those wishing to lead an alternative lifestyle no?
Quote from: mcgonser on April 13, 2009, 10:31:13 AM
. . . The bible also entails the responsibilities of the husband to his wife. It is beautiful reading and I believe in the God's laws of marriage.
Both ways. And I know a battalion of females that would pitch a deadly fit should their husbands even broach the subject of holding them to said "instruction".
and that is something PH that should be worked out in any marriage or relationship between 2 people. These are instructions from God on how a good marriage works, its left up to us to choose(free will)
Quote from: mcgonser on April 13, 2009, 11:54:35 AM
. . . its left up to us to choose(free will)
And yet humankind deems anyone different as an outcast of society unless they "go with the flow". How hypocritical is that?
I submit that "f
ree will" is nothing more than a panacea; also created by humankind in order to elicit compliance from the masses to the will of a select few.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 13, 2009, 12:01:40 PM
And yet humankind deems anyone different as an outcast of society unless they "go with the flow". How hypocritical is that?
I submit that "fee will" is nothing more than a panacea; also created by humankind in order to elicit compliance from the masses to the will of a select few.
Well, I'll be danged, I didn't realize I was being charged a fee to make choices.
Quote from: pariann on April 13, 2009, 01:46:28 PM
Well, I'll be danged, I didn't realize I was being charged a fee to make choices.
Well shit. . .
Quote from: pariann on April 10, 2009, 08:55:29 PM
yes, but I still love him....as a brother....on the internet. :biggrin:
:redface: :smitten: :smitten: :-[
Quote from: Palehorse on April 13, 2009, 11:06:44 AM
...Government should step to the plate, tell the zealots to get out of government...
Yes. True Believers of any stripe distract from the necessary business of administering policies and funding. If we could get back all the time and money wasted on debating and proselytizing (for or against) such non-issues as flag burning and gay marriage, perhaps something could actually be done about the run-off of our manufacturing jobs.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 13, 2009, 11:11:31 AM
And I know a battalion of females that would pitch a deadly fit should their husbands even broach the subject of holding them to said "instruction".
That battalion also includes absolutely
every girl I've ever dated in the past. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: pariann on April 13, 2009, 07:48:17 AM
What's the difference? Sounds to me like a civil union would be exactly the same as a marriage.......so why would there be more of them than marriages? People marry out of commitment. A civil union would still be a commitment. So....what is the difference?
Marriage is a religious institution a civil union a secular one; one that can become part of law, vice the religious union.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 13, 2009, 08:13:49 AM
Well, I'm not going to preach or pull out any verses.....maybe I'm just old fashion...but, those words in the Bible DO mean something to me....God is clear about what a marriage SHOULD be....and I believe Him.
I think IF we would follow the word of God, the way He means it, we would NOT have the troubles we are facing in this world...such as divorces, drugs, child abuse and on and on.
Hey, like i have said before, I do NOT have ANY hatred towards two people of the same sex who "love" each other...I just feel that..marriage IS a sacred event, between a man and a woman....period....not going to change my mind about this....EVER.
And you just gave every reason why the gov't should not have anything to do with marriages. It is a religious institution. You can still get married in a church, but the state should not recognize the union until the licenses have been submitted and the social contract is enacted as a civil union, as well. Two people can be married and be in a civil union, just as two people who forgo marriage in a church can be in a civil union. It really isn't that hard to understand, is it?
I have a marriage license. (from when i was married) I did not get married in a church, or with a religious ceremony. I did have to repeat that I agreed to be married to a Notary.
Will this civil union include saying those vows, and making a public commitment in front of 2 witnesses? If so, I have to say, I see no difference between a civil union and a marriage. I wasn't any less married because I didn't get married in a church or by a preacher.
blah blah blah-Your are like a stuck record. Repeating yourself-Dan
Quote from: pariann on April 13, 2009, 09:22:40 PM
I have a marriage license. (from when i was married) I did not get married in a church, or with a religious ceremony. I did have to repeat that I agreed to be married to a Notary.
Will this civil union include saying those vows, and making a public commitment in front of 2 witnesses? If so, I have to say, I see no difference between a civil union and a marriage. I wasn't any less married because I didn't get married in a church or by a preacher.
The notary part is the civil part. There ARE civil marriages, but it is the goofballs promoting marriage as defined by the bible, or their god, or whatever myth they believe in, that are the problem. We SHOULD finally define marriage the way the religious want to and get on with Civil Unions as the ONLY state recognized, legal contract.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 13, 2009, 09:23:18 PM
blah blah blah-Your are like a stuck record. Repeating yourself-Dan
You guys are a little slow, so seems I have to repeat myself more than I thought would be needed to "get it".
Quote from: dan foster on April 13, 2009, 09:41:54 PM
.... the goofballs promoting marriage as defined by the bible, or their god, or whatever myth they believe in, that are the problem. ...
Yeah, jumping over the broom just doesn't feel binding -- no matter how manner times I do it.
Quote from: LOsborne on April 13, 2009, 09:44:16 PM
Yeah, jumping over the broom just doesn't feel binding -- no matter how manner times I do it.
Did your husband not bring enough goats to your father? :biggrin:
He was supposed to bring goats? Dammit. What is dad going to do with those five bags of gold?
Quote from: LOsborne on April 13, 2009, 09:50:36 PM
He was supposed to bring goats? Dammit. What is dad going to do with those five bags of gold?
:biggrin:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/icantlook.jpg)
Quote from: dan foster on April 13, 2009, 09:42:48 PM
You guys are a little slow, so seems I have to repeat myself more than I thought would be needed to "get it".
That's got to be the understatement of the year.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 14, 2009, 07:55:28 AM
That's got to be the understatement of the year.
No doubt. One has to spoon feed a couple of these folks as that is also how they get their topics; spoon fed from that fount of knowledge, Fox Noise.
5 years later, and now Indiana is dealing with this topic. Is there a thread about it elsewhere on the forum?
I think PH started one somewhere. Maybe in his area or the Rough House.
I might have to "search it up" (as itty bitty says) and see what the thoughts here were.
Quote from: pariann on July 15, 2014, 03:13:18 PM
I might have to "search it up" (as itty bitty says) and see what the thoughts here were.
The cliff notes version: Deeply divided along theological lines. . . :rolleyes: