Dr Rick

Hi "bunnytoes," and welcome.

Well, Theo; what say you? Someone as picked-up the gauntlet you threw-down.

Rick, FD & D Moderator

Talulah

ROTFLMAO!

Really Geo, tell us why it is wrong, immoral or harmful without using the bible (like Scigirl has been saying) and we will be a lot more prone to listen.

Here is a hint, we don't place a lot of faith in the bible.

Mageth

And without mentioning "big sweaty hairy asses."

Godless Sodomite

Big sweaty hairy asses were my favorite part of the thread. But, of course, that's a conversation for another forum and a different audience.

-Jerry

Mageth

ROTFLMBSHAO!

Autonemesis

Hear, Hear! I prefer smooth bubble butts, too, GeoTheo.

Vincent

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and try to stay on topic for a bit.

Actually, since I was last able to read this thread a number of people have said pretty much the same things I was going to say here so I may just be rehashing things here....

Geo, it doesn't so much matter what your definition of marriage is. It could just as well be that you define a union between rutabaga and insulin as marriage. The point at which it does matter, however, is when law refuses to recognize the rights of a man's spouse simply because of his sex. (Or woman's spouse because of her sex.) It isn't even so much a sexual orientation issue in this case, but a clear case of sexual discrimination. There is a paradox here in States' laws, and until we either do away with State recognized marriage or do away with our stupid laws sanctioning discrimination for a theological rather than secular purpose we will be doing everyone a great disservice. We must all remember here: The State did not invent marriage. Marriage existed before the State and the State has chosen to recognize a couple's will and right to be legally bound to one another, with all rights and burdens that entails. If someone tells you they are married, Geo, and both parties honestly believe this to be the case, they are married, regardless of what you believe. Hopefully, lawmakers will soon realize this too and give them the rights and recognition that they deserve.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vincent ]</p>

Vincent

I must say, you do rock, Rick

scigirl

Vincent, thank you - that post is exactly how I feel:
Exactly. Religion no longer needs to play a role in state-sanctioned marriage (although it can if you want it to).

The state has decided to honor marriages with certain benefits, such as the following:

• Tax breaks
• Easier to adopt children
• Easier to make medical decisions for each other
• Easier to obtain health insurance
• Property inheritance in event of a death

I'm sure there are others I am forgetting. There are also negatives of marriage, such as - the spouse becomes linked to debt.

A couple who not only wants to be married, but also wants to act like they are married, would be suffering if the state did not allow a marriage. They would have a tougher time adopting kids, doing their taxes, getting health insurance, etc. Now this wouldn't be a big deal for gay people if the straight people didn't get these benefits either. But the straight people do get these benefits. That's where the discrimination comes in.

Does the state have the right to prevent some forms of marriage? Sure, I think it does - when someone is being harmed. For instance, minors. But two men, or two women? I fail to see the harm. I have yet to see a convincing (or even a non-convincing) argument for not allowing the state to recognize a marriage for the above purposes that does not involve the Bible.

Let me reiterate - the freedom of Christians to practice their religion is stopped when their religious practices impede on the rights of others. And that is exactly what anti-gay laws are doing, and it is immoral, unethical, and against the first amendment.

Arrowman

Coming in late (so to speak ) - my $0.02:

I don't think Christianity per se promotes bigotry or intolerance towards homosexuality. Is homosexuality a sin / forbidden by God? There are good arguments either way, depending on how you read the Bible. I don't have a particular problem with Christians who take the "sin" interpretation; but at the same time I think the basic message of Christianity is "hate the sin, love the sinner" so no, I don't think Christianity is the problem here.

Thing is, people use their religion to reinforce and justify their pre-existing personal beliefs - whether that is on matters of morals, sexuality, politics, whatever. Why are so many Southern Baptists politically conservative (and very often they will use Scripture to support their views), while Anglican church leaders often espouse views which are eseentially politically "left"? It's the people and the way they use their religion; not the religion itself.

One more thing - something I really don't get is the activists in some churches )the Catholic Church in particular) for acceptance of gays. It seems that to Catholic gay activists the institution and dogma of the RCC is more important to them than their basic Christianity. Why not just accept that RCC as a church that doesn't tolerate gays, give it the bird and move to another church? It's not like there aren't options these days.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>