Political Crossfire Forums

[Zangoose]

i want to know if this is ok. So if gay marriege is illegal. Then why can gay(male) marry gay(woman) or woman? I know thats legal. So is this ok? Do you support that? I know alot of the christian wack jobs approve of this right?

[Wolverine]

I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.

[mathurin]

without bothering to give my position

because they might think marriage is between a man and woman regardless of sexual preference

could also be that many think there are no homosexuals, just sexually confused heteros

[ToonArmyIsComing]

soldierofchrist wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.
I agree, sort of. I say, get government out of mariage, and then if individual chruches/denominations want gay marriage, that's between them and God. Although, I think it's a sin, and would not want it in my church.....

What if Jews/Muslims/athiests want to get married? Are you saying they should go to Church? :?

[Jay2014]

ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.

exactly. cant remember who said it, but: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins." and by extention, not before.

the fact that swinging my fist might be merely offensive to another is irrelevant.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Jay2014 wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.

exactly. cant remember who said it, but: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins." and by extention, not before.

the fact that swinging my fist might be merely offensive to another is irrelevant.

a bit off-topic, but what if you are intentionally threatening me by swinging your fist? :?

[00timh]

As a conservative heterosexual pseudo Christian I will give my thoughts on gay marriage

I do not feel that gay marriage weakens marriage. Marriage has already been weakened by lawyers. Perhaps this is my tainted view of marriage in general because mine went to s**t and I ended up in the divorced category but currently I think that marriage is just in bad shape in general. Other than certain benefits upon death and other financial situations, most people are accepting of children born out of wedlock. They are accepting of couples who decide not to get married and even have families. Right or wrong as an opinion of these matters means little because that is just how society views these things.

Even inmost small towns and rural areas, LTR relationships between gay couples is generally accepted if the gay couple does not spend a majority of their time directing attention to themselves as being gay. Not that they are closeted but I think most of you know what I mean. Of course in most major urban areas gay couples are widely accepted.

IMO marriage being what it is and with the benefits being as little as they are and with the widely accepted non marriage optional family lifestyles-

marriage is or should not be the greatest concern for homosexuals. The same financial rights should be. With increased emphasis on civil unions, those can be achieved.

If public opinion were to change and gay marriage were to become more accepted in this country, states agreeing that it is constitutional, I don't have a problem with it. Because it does state somewhere in the bible (I don't read it, thus my proclamation of pseudo Christian) most major Christian churches will not be accepting of this for some time, especially catholics. That is just a reality that homosexuals are just going to have to live with for the foreseeable future.

Being that currently the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage, fighting so adamantly for it will not increase acceptance. Being that there is IMO still far too many over the top homosexual groups that do not give the impression that they want to be part of every day society, the general continued hollywood and media stereotyping, the general population will continue to view homosexuality as a large separation from normality even though they are accepting of individuals.

The larger challenge for homosexuals should be to become more of a comfortable piece of society. Before you go stating that the hetero majority needs to become more accepting I already agree with you. BUT, until these over the top groups with their protests, the pride parades and rainbow banners become less of the visible face of homosexuals, straight people will continue to view homosexuality as an a deviation from normality and will continue to feel that marriage, being in the sad shape that it is already is should not be for same sex couples.

[Jay2014]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Jay2014 wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.

exactly. cant remember who said it, but: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins." and by extention, not before.

the fact that swinging my fist might be merely offensive to another is irrelevant.

a bit off-topic, but what if you are intentionally threatening me by swinging your fist? :?

thats an interesting point, an one of the reason i dont like philosophical metaphores like this. i dont know. but i think the principle holds true. my rights end where yours begin.

[F'losrix]

Jay2014 wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Jay2014 wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.

exactly. cant remember who said it, but: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins." and by extention, not before.

the fact that swinging my fist might be merely offensive to another is irrelevant.

a bit off-topic, but what if you are intentionally threatening me by swinging your fist? :?

thats an interesting point, an one of the reason i dont like philosophical metaphores like this. i dont know. but i think the principle holds true. my rights end where yours begin.

Put another way - in exercising your rights (represented by swinging your arm), you are constrained from doing so with such reckless abandon (or focused malice) that it has an impact upon my rights (represented by my nose).

[F'losrix]

Zangoose wrote: i want to know if this is ok. So if gay marriege is illegal. Then why can gay(male) marry gay(woman) or woman? I know thats legal. So is this ok? Do you support that? I know alot of the christian wack jobs approve of this right?

Legal - yes.

Ok - Depends on the answers to several other questions - like whether you think the element of affection/attraction that gives way to sexual expression is required to exist at a certain strength between the couple in order for the marriage to succeed or be valid. I can't say that I'm thrilled with the idea of gay people marrying partners of the opposite gender, having known people who tried it and failed.

Support it - Depends on what you mean. I think it should be up to the couple involved, not me. Now, if you're asking me if it should be the only viable option for marriage available to a gay person, then I would have to say no - I don't support that - no more than I support requiring gay people to be celibate.

An informed adult should be allowed to enter into the marriage contract with a similar adult without any impediment based on their gender or sexual orientation. If two straight guys want to have a marriage contract between themselves, I suppose that would be fine, too - though I'm not crazy about the idea because I think such a marriage would likely be doomed to fail.

[Zangoose]

So people would support it? But wouldn't this be fraud? A male posing to be straight be is have affair with another man. or vise versa. I'm just asking. (and for the record i'm for gay marriage.)

[F'losrix]

Zangoose wrote: So people would support it? But wouldn't this be fraud? A male posing to be straight be is have affair with another man. or vise versa. I'm just asking. (and for the record i'm for gay marriage.)
It depends on what you view as essential to making a marriage be a marriage.

The concept of fraud is only supported if one party entered into the union deceiving the other. If they both agree that the sexual part of love isn't going to be the essential element that holds the marriage together, there is no fraud. Legally speaking, they're not under any constraint to be sexual with each other as a part of the marriage contract if that wasn't an expectation of either party. Our society has long ago foregone a requirement of proof that a marriage has been sexually consumated, and that's hardly the purpose of marriage, anyway. Should we make people divorce once they stop having sex? I would say 'no' - the divorce rate is already too high.

The point being, the contract is between the people involved - not a contract with the rest of society. A married couple has no obligation to prove to the rest of society that their marrigae has a sexual element, nor anything about the sexual orientation of either party.

So any complaints that giving legal recognition to gay couples would lead to people who are heterosexual entering into faux marriages just for the benefits is a red herring - non-heterosexuals can already do this by marrying a partner of the opposite gender - and I would dispute that it makes their marriage 'fake'. I would likewise dispute that the ability of gay folk to do this makes for any kind of an argument supporting the denial of same-sex marriage recognition. Just because they can do this, that doesn't mean they should, nor that society should place such an expectation upon them.

Bottom line - we don't make people prove themselves heterosexual in order to enter into a marriage contract - and we shouldn't start. How would one prove/disprove such a thing in the first place? And what would be the goal of such a restriction?

I conclude that it's okay for people to get married regardless of their sexual orientation - so long as all parties are honest about it and their expectations at the outset.

(edited for spelling)

[Jimi The Kid]

ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.

Damn right.

[gM]

just a question

what is the quarans take on homosexuality?

how about the torrah?

[Melchior]

gM wrote: just a question

what is the quarans take on homosexuality?

how about the torrah?

I'm pretty sure they all condemn it. All the major organized religions condemn homosexuality.

[VoltaireUSA]

soldierofchrist wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.
I agree, sort of. I say, get government out of mariage, and then if individual chruches/denominations want gay marriage, that's between them and God. Although, I think it's a sin, and would not want it in my church.....

Agreed. If they want to marry, fine with them. Who are we to limit them when thaey have done nothing to limit nor harm us, physically or psychologically.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Hephaestus wrote: gM wrote: just a question

what is the quarans take on homosexuality?

how about the torrah?

I'm pretty sure they all condemn it. All the major organized religions condemn homosexuality.

Quran on homosexuality:

6:21 And if two (men) of you commit it [homosexual acts], then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate.

And then like the Bible, the Quran talks about the story of Sodom in 7:78-84.

It's quite amazing these religions are fighting with each other since their message is almost the same.

[Melchior]

The three major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, all founded in the same region with similar origins. The differences between them are not as great as the differences between all the sects of Buddhism. Do you ever see monks starting wars and s**t?

[connermt]

soldierofchrist wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: I'm a Christian, but I say let them marry! Who are they hurting if the get married? Nobody. Let people do what they want, as long as it isn't hurting another person... physicaly.

The government should only protect you from force and fraud, not from yourself.
I agree, sort of. I say, get government out of mariage, and then if individual chruches/denominations want gay marriage, that's between them and God. Although, I think it's a sin, and would not want it in my church.....

That brings up an interesting point: "I wouldn't want it in my church". We all know that current adminstration is supported by the 'church'. I wonder if the fight against gay marriage runs deeper than we thought. Think about it: gays, as a general rule, have more $ than the average American (for whatever reason{s}), so by getting married, will gays pay less taxes? We all also know that when gay marriage becomes legal, it will devide the church. Maybe this is a way GW is trying to protect the unity of the church? Gay marriage will result in church divisions (churches have already divided over the mere thought of the subject), so maybe this is GW's 'Devine Plan' to protect the church in American & thus, protect America?

[connermt]

00timh wrote: As a conservative heterosexual pseudo Christian I will give my thoughts on gay marriage

I do not feel that gay marriage weakens marriage. Marriage has already been weakened by lawyers. Perhaps this is my tainted view of marriage in general because mine went to s**t and I ended up in the divorced category but currently I think that marriage is just in bad shape in general. Other than certain benefits upon death and other financial situations, most people are accepting of children born out of wedlock. They are accepting of couples who decide not to get married and even have families. Right or wrong as an opinion of these matters means little because that is just how society views these things.

Even inmost small towns and rural areas, LTR relationships between gay couples is generally accepted if the gay couple does not spend a majority of their time directing attention to themselves as being gay. Not that they are closeted but I think most of you know what I mean. Of course in most major urban areas gay couples are widely accepted.

IMO marriage being what it is and with the benefits being as little as they are and with the widely accepted non marriage optional family lifestyles-

marriage is or should not be the greatest concern for homosexuals. The same financial rights should be. With increased emphasis on civil unions, those can be achieved.

If public opinion were to change and gay marriage were to become more accepted in this country, states agreeing that it is constitutional, I don't have a problem with it. Because it does state somewhere in the bible (I don't read it, thus my proclamation of pseudo Christian) most major Christian churches will not be accepting of this for some time, especially catholics. That is just a reality that homosexuals are just going to have to live with for the foreseeable future.

Being that currently the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage, fighting so adamantly for it will not increase acceptance. Being that there is IMO still far too many over the top homosexual groups that do not give the impression that they want to be part of every day society, the general continued hollywood and media stereotyping, the general population will continue to view homosexuality as a large separation from normality even though they are accepting of individuals.

The larger challenge for homosexuals should be to become more of a comfortable piece of society. Before you go stating that the hetero majority needs to become more accepting I already agree with you. BUT, until these over the top groups with their protests, the pride parades and rainbow banners become less of the visible face of homosexuals, straight people will continue to view homosexuality as an a deviation from normality and will continue to feel that marriage, being in the sad shape that it is already is should not be for same sex couples.

You make a couple good points. I think that gay people should be content, at least for now, to go with Civil Unions - who cares if it is caused marriage or not. While I understand some see that as being less than equal to hetero-couples, but I would take what win I can get for the time being. If that's Civil Unions, then so be it. The probelm is that some states are not only banning gay marriage, but also any & all Civil Unions. This is nothing more then to be hurtful not only to gay couples, but to hetero-couples that don't want to get married.
I also agree that being rude & in your face (like some people are) does nothing but turn away potential supports of your cause (whatever that may be). You need to start with a good foundation & build up from there. You don't star building a skyscrapper from the top down, you start with its supports & basically build up