Have had countless dinners and seen films with other women but never once did it come into my mind to turn a friendship into a sexual relationship. Perhaps you are different. Perhaps you are curious as to what it might be like. Go for it, mate. Enjoy! But I'll go my way and you go yours.

That is something i never knew about you MM. Thats quite an experience.

-Cerial

Cereal, gosh, how I have missed you, old mate. Do hope that life has been treating you well. Know for sure that you have grown into one terrific young man.


Yes, my past life has had some moments of great unhappiness but then am a big believer in that you must accept those things you cannot change and wallowing in self-pity is the worst thing you could possibly do. People all over this globe have troubles far worse than mine and yet they keep on going day by day, step by step.

Forgotten: Sorry, when it comes to whose thoughts I put more stock into when it comes to developmental psychology (like why someone ends up gay vs. straight and when it manifests itself) I'm going to go ahead and go with the American Psychological Association instead of you, a random poster who seems to harbor a very homophobic attitude.

If you've had some type of same-sex experience and you've questioned yourself, maybe it's something you need to explore more, but it's not that this homosexual experience "corrupted" you, but it's rather that you've been socialized all your life to think that straight is right and gay is wrong and weird, and you've convinced yourself you're straight despite the fact that it isn't true.

Feel free to read up:

http://www.apa.org/...r/sexual-orientation.aspx

I'm sorry to see this thread taking this direction of discussion. It really has little to do with right and wrong it is just that the definition of marriage does not fit and should not be applied to same sex civil unions.

That does not mean same sex civil unions could not carry the same weight, or responsibilities as a marriage, under the law. It is not one law for the left and one for the right. It is a way to bring about equal treatment under the law without regulating what a religion will and will not except. Do not allow the government to start telling religions what they will and will not except, as the next step from there is telling people what religion they will or will not follow.

Think of it like this:

Can I walk the streets of any town completely naked?

No.

Why?

It is considered indecent exposure and I can be arrested.

Who considers it indecent?

The majority of the people in the nation.

So the majority decides what is acceptable and unacceptable?

Yes.

So if there is a public vote, ie: California, and they say same sex marriage is not acceptable then that is just okay?

Yes. It was put to the people to vote on and they overwhelmingly made a decision.

What about the gays who don't care about the "perks" or whatever of a civil union and want to be "married"?

I would tell them that we live in a democracy with laws that are to be followed, but that as a majority, we can change. So get their case on the ballot and when the voters say it is acceptable by a high enough margin to get it approved then they will be able to do that. Until then it is the way it is.

And please do not compare this to being "separate but equal" as that definition just insults the people who worked, marched and even died to bring equality to the black community. There are no separate drinking fountains for gays, they do not have to send their kids to different schools or have them ride different buses. They do not have to give up their seat and move to the back if a straight person wants to sit down. Same sex marriage does not compare.

if you can be hetro long enough to have children, you just plain ain't that gay.

LOL. You wanna make a bet, Dibs?????????????? This situation has been going on for centuries.

Definition of marriage according to the latest edition of the Miriam-Webster dictionary:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage

Notice: no mention of religion there.

^^ LOL

Nice definition, but you're reading the wrong book!

what are the facts of marraige in a Godless country?

It is for this reason that a man will depart from his parents and join to a wife. Would that be the right book?

I think what is missed in the thinking of the right ,with there being no personal God there can be no man made lawful reason to stop man from joining man. As we are ruled by man ,the law must be the same for everyone. The law must be blind .

In the current time the state recognises what God has done when He joins a man and a woman into one person. What is being asked of the state is that it recognise what man has joined . Is it the same? NO,but-and you know there was going to be a but- the law is the same.

On another note----the bill of rights ----If The rights are given by the creater, and there is no creater, WE must be the givers of rights .I say we make no new laws giving gays the right to be married in any way ,shape ,or form.

yes I spell poorly

bah, just get rid of all marriages. why do you need to be married anyway, to get divorced? women need to collect alimony and child support as a means of income?

^^most worthless post of this whole thread...

I believe it was in 1959 the majority of U.S citizens voted NO on interracial marriage.
the supreme court overturned the law, and made it legal despite what the majority of the country wanted because they realized discrimination against someone based on some arbitrary thing they have no control over (where they were born, there skin colour, sexual orientation) was wrong, despite what most people at the time thought.

And no, homosexuality is not a "choice" like a lot bible thumping Christians claim will say, this is a proven fact (something most religions do not deal in mind you)

the U.S needs to look at other countries that are far ahead of them in human rights issues such as this, and realize that allowing gays the same freedoms as anyone else hasn't hurt there countries in the least, so why would the U.S suddenly fall apart?

I will say thou, that gay pride parades REALLY hurt there cause for equality.
when blacks were fighting for the same liberties everyone else took for granted you didn't see them acting that way. and they got what they deserved a lot easier. (I know not all people in gay pride parades act like complete freaks, and sexually disturbed individuals, but enough are that they dominate the scene)


edt:
uldust. it seems you are under the popular and horribly wrong/misguided opinion that the U.S was founded on christian laws. the "founding fathers" were most definatly NOT bibble thumpers, and CLEARLY stated that religion and state should be separate. and im sure if they were alive today they would be disgusted with what there vision has become

Excellent post, popcorn.

I would remind you tho that there were many black marches in cities as they peacefully sought an equal chance to pursue the dream that the U.S. was founded on. Many of these marchers were attacked by the white law men with attack dogs, high powered fire hoses, etc.

So the marches are not new. I honestly wish tho that the gay rights marchers would do their cause a lot more good if they did not dress in such a bizarre way. Ditto to the public display of affection. And I would say the same to heterosexuals, some of whom care not what they dress like or behave like when with their "partners" for the moment. Am a bit old fashioned here and believe there is a time and a place for everything and over-the-top sexual behaviour should be confined to private places.

To reinforce popcorns' last remarks, none of the Founding Fathers were what we would call "religious" today. They were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments. They made themselves perfectly clear that religion and government should be completely separate for all time in their new country.

Most conservatives have forgotten this, that is if they ever knew it in the first place. The U.S. was to be a safe haven for people of any or no religion because these wise men lived in a time when religion bred conflict, intolerance and even death in many places. Instead they chose "e pluribus unum", one nation out of many different cultures and beliefs.

And here we are 300 years later, idolizing the Founding Fathers, their Constitution and Bill of Rights yet so many want to toss out their wisdom and substitute it for their own personal religious and ethical beliefs. This most certainly cannot be termed conservative but rather far right radical extremism.

the most ridiculous thing i've seen on this issue, was right here in good ole australia home of the gay bus love in across the desert..

Everyone's favourite lesbian parliamentarian Penny Wong said she was against gay marriage?!?!?

odd.

I strongly beg to differ that the founding fathers were not religious. They opposed the exact kind of thing that is happening today, which is the state trying to dictate to religions what they will and will not accept.

They opposed the "state" telling them what religion was acceptable, but very much believed that God was the supreme being and that His divinity and direction would lead their path to a strong and glorious nation. For example "In God we trust"

I thought it was common knowledge that the definition of a "man" as in "all men are created equal" was a 21 year old, white male landowner. That did not include women or property of the before mentioned men.

Men were tarred and feathered and women were branded to wear a scarlet A on their clothes for adultery. Sodomy was punishable by death just as in the story of Soddam and Gamora in the bible.(Though they were usually hung or executed by firing squad not turned to pillars of salt)

I am a little set back by your last post MM. Up until that post I thought you were better versed in our history than that.

I have friends of many different colors and nationalities, but our great "forefathers" never envisioned that their property or "machines" for lack of a better modern day term, would ever be able to own a home or cast a vote.

Even Abraham Lincoln as late as the 1860's, during his illegal and unconstitutional war (topic for another thread), said that if he could end the conflict and maintain the Union without freeing a single salve he would do it. He even went so far as to set up a country in Africa called Liberia and offer to ship any slave who fought for the North there.

Also when you look at a black man and a white woman getting married, or vise versa, there is no verse or chapter that I can find to speak against it. There are entire sections of the Bible that speak against same sex couples.

Do not try to put the term "marriage" on a same sex coupling. It is not appropriate. They do deserve protection under the law. Make civil unions carry the same weight as a marriage.


Popcom:

There is no other country in the world that even compares, not even close, to giving their citizens civil liberties, and respecting their human rights, or civil rights. In Canada you can be arrested for inciteful speech, or for speaking against gay marriage from the pulpit. Not in America. In Canada you can be stopped in mass on the highway and have your vehicle or person searched, just because. Not in America. There is no other country on this planet that treats it's people as good or gives the civil liberties that America does. That is a fact.

The Pilgrims and our founding fathers came to America to practice Christianity free from the money grubbing churches of England. They were called Puritans. They believed that each person had an intimate relationship with God and that the priests were taking money and offering up penance for misdeeds that were not appropriate. They believed that God was reached through his son Jesus Christ, not through how much you payed to the church in your tithe. Thus they came here and made a clear distinction between what the state ie: government could tell a religion to do or accept.

" The Pilgrims and our founding fathers came to America to practice Christianity free from the money grubbing churches of England. They were called Puritans. They believed that each person had an intimate relationship with God and that the priests were taking money and offering up penance for misdeeds that were not appropriate. They believed that God was reached through his son Jesus Christ, not through how much you payed to the church in your tithe. Thus they came here and made a clear distinction between what the state ie: government could tell a religion to do or accept."

So the solution to that is start up their own money grubbing churches that spread hate and bile across the globe in the name of "god"? Telling others how to live their life?

Why is it wrong for a homosexual person to marry? christianity does NOT have control of the word "marriage". The tradition of christian marriage was appropriated from pagan ceremonies anyway.. how can you legitematly claim marriage is a christian ceremony in the first place?

It is an absurd arguement, based on hatred, bile, fear and pure arrogance.

None of the Founding Father were Pilgrims.

The Pilgrims came and settled in one spot--Plymouth, Massachusetts. They were a small group (no time to look it up) who disliked some of the practices of the Church of England and actually wanted to secede from England. They were working people of little means and education and so hopes to find a more comfortable life in the New World.

Later they were followed by the Puritans, a much larger group
that settled in Massachusetts Bay. Unlike the Pilgrims, they were not separatists. They were far better educated and most had some money behind them to ease their establishment of a new life. Their settlement was run as a semi-theocracy in the years the Puritans controlled it (rather like Iran is run today). There was no freedom of religion as we know it today.

Regarding the freedoms and rights that Americans alone among nations enjoy, may I suggest that you do some traveling throughout the world and you possibly might change your mind a bit. Many people in other countries do not want some of the freedoms and rights of Americans. Not everyone in other countries is jealous of the American way of life. Just because they prefer to live with slightly different values does not make them better or worse than Americans.

Sorry, no more time now. But one question first: in what way has the U.S. government dictated to the churches what they may or may not do? The only instance I can think of was in the very late 1800s, I believe, when the government refused to accept Utah into the republic unless polygamy was outlawed--altho do believe it still exists over 100 years later.

Frankly I wish the state or federal government would step in and stop those crazy Baptist church members--only 50-100 of them in this church tho, thank God--from going to the cemeteries when veterans were being buried and disrupting the entire service. See, if I were in charge, I would toss them all into a jail for a few days. Sure do disapprove of this "right."

True MM that the Pilgrims did not frame the constitution. I guess now reading my previous post I did not word that very well.

You are right the about the Puritans they did have money to back their establishments. They each however lived in their own colony based on their beliefs. Kind of like their own little suburb.

You cannot deny that when the constitution was "Framed" the above statements about what "all men" and "In God we trust" was, because the founders meant for a morals based society to prevail in this land. They all followed a faith with God as the one divine being that we all answered to. They also did not believe that the government should be able to tell their "suburb" or "community of faith" what was or was not acceptable.

As to other nations having different freedoms and not being jealous of the "American way of life" I would say you are correct. I have been to several other nations around the globe and there are many who enjoy their way of life. I enjoyed my time with them very much and am happy that their way of life works for them. They can all stay right where they are and make changes, as they can, and see fit, in their own nations. I did, and still do not, presume to tell them what those changes should be. I would appreciate if they would do the same.

Please remember I did not start this thread with an assigning off color statement. That was a resident of another country, once again, trying to impose a foreign opinion/idea on me/us.

Your question as to what has the government dictated to a religion in this country. Outside of your previous reference I think this would be the only other time. Fortunately it has not become a law yet, and hopefully never will. That is the point though. Do not let the politicians bring a law in that dictates what a religion will accept and be forced to allow. Do not let our "One nation under God" go that far outside of Gods laws. "One nation under God with liberty and justice for all." Let the same sex couples have the same protections "justice" but keep the core of the nation "under God"

As for the Baptist church that is going to the funerals and causing a scene. That is the only way they can get to the lime light. It sucks that they try to use the dead who fight for their rights to raise their message, but that is the twisted society we live in today.

Dragonlance,
Your post does not deserve an intelligent response, but the bible directs me to do unto others as you would have done unto you, so I will simply say "Pull your head out. There is sunshine and clean air outside of your dark abyss.". I would hope that the church you attend inspires you to look within yourself and live by what your heart tells you is right. That fellowship among believers in Gods word will help you to feel Gods strength in your soul and inspire you be the best person you can be.

uldust. it seems you are under the popular and horribly wrong/misguided opinion that the U.S was founded on christian laws. the "founding fathers" were most definatly NOT bibble thumpers, and CLEARLY stated that religion and state should be separate. and im sure if they were alive today they would be disgusted with what there vision has become

Thanks. Can you please point out where it CLEARLY stats this? I know it is hard to point out as the only place I have found it is in a letter from jefferson to --------I,ll let you read it for yourself.

as for the founders not being followers of Christ. If thay were not of that mind set why then is it that Christ is so much a part of there writting and reasoning?

I think if you have a good look you will find why you are under the popular and horribly wrong/misguided opinion that the U.S wasent founded on christian laws.

Marriage is only a religious institution for certain religions. Some regions (some of the major ones, when it comes to populations practicing them) see marriage as a completely civil institution.

So making the blanket generalization that marriage is a religion institution is severely bias.

To me it's simple: if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

"There is no other country in the world that even compares, not even close, to giving their citizens civil liberties, and respecting their human rights, or civil rights."

That's just propaganda or general lack of research. I can give many examples how that isn't true but I'm not gonna go on a 10000000 character rant. However, is the US more or less on par with the rest of the 1st world? probably. At least where I live I won't get a criminal record for "public drunkeness" or "being under the influence" of something:P

I think we have to seperate the 'legal marriages' and 'religous marriages' with 'real marriages'


people fall in love, they want to be commited to one another, so they get 'married' to prove to each other how much they want to be with each other.

all the legality and religous implications just complicates things too much.

So if these LGBT life style lovers wants to get 'married' then so be it.

As long as they stop fluffing around and drive everyone nuts, waste resources for their little parade, then yah. I think we'll be fine.




I wear glasses, I was born needing glasses, do you see me organizing parades to stop people from calling people with glasses four eyes? To stop the tyranny and opress of optical companies taking my money away because I was born needing them? Stop all the harassments calling names, and just live a normal life, just with glasses?

It does sound insane right? That's how I feel about the Pride parade. Live your life, don't cause trouble, and people won't put on the hater hat.

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution make any mention of marriage at all. Over the years though, some states have decided to put their ethical and moral beliefs into their laws, i.e., as has been mentioned, the laws enacted to prohibit interracial marriage.

And now the uproar is over same-sex marriage which, to my mind, is completely contrary to the wishes of our Founding Fathers. The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence (the original Tea Party people) said this:

Our Creator (notice they did not use the word God, Jesus or Christianity) has given us certain inalienable rights...among these....is the pursuit of happiness. Later they restate this right to happiness once more, this time adding safety and happiness.

Now if one is dedicated to interpreting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the Founding Fathers meant when composing it, each man (unfortunately women were not included in the discussion or even in their thoughts most of the time) defines happiness in his own personal way. What constitutes happiness for one man might very well make another man miserable, but as long as a man's pursuit of happiness does not endanger the well-being of another, he is free to seek those things and conditions necessary to meet his needs. Whom he chooses to marry or whether or not he even desires to marry are obviously decisions that will contribute to his pursuit of happiness.

To impose one's personal morals and ethics on others is completely contrary to the basis on which this nation was founded. Indeed, I find it not only presumptuous, abominable but even evil.

"Deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." (People vote, laws get passed.)

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" (Gods law dictates what is right, and wrong)

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," (we appeal to the Supreme judge of the world... God)

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence," (we rely on Gods protection)

Their entire declaration was, in their words, brought forward with the assistance of God.

God is very clear about same sex coupling. Gods will is supposed to be directing the path of the USA. Allowing gay marriage is not in good keeping with that.

I will address why you are wrong about the constitution in my next post.

Go for it. My credentials include teaching constitutional law.
And yours?

That makes you no less wrong about allowing gays to marry.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
(Gods Will should not be bypassed by any law of the land)


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (the people as a whole have the right to pursue God as they see fit, not to be interfered with by laws of the nation)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively(like deciding who can and cannot marry), or to the people. (the people can decide and voice their decisions, by a vote, on how matters not directly addressed in the constitution, shall be handled)

Sorry, when people have closed minds, to waste one's energy on discussing matters is futile. You have little to no knowledge of the religious beliefs or lack thereof of our Founding Fathers as the created the new nation. Go in peace and may God grant you all your wishes for your country and for your personal life.

Thanks to everyone who has posted I enjoyed your thoughts.


Mad Morticia
To impose one's personal morals and ethics on others is completely contrary to the basis on which this nation was founded.

Is it not your personal morals that you are posting to uphold.? Posting that you have great insite into this subject and then following it with personal attacks on the closed minded ,wasted energy and little knowledge is no less than an unwillingness to deal with the facts at hand.

If its about being happy with the things man can give you that the founders were aluding . why then lead with life and libirty that is not given by man." only the creator can give what man is looking for to make him full of life ,liberty and happiness.--------------not my words only, one of those founders said this---who do you think it was?

This thing was not done in the dark ,each person that had a part is known and can be known,In the same way we know each other now. by what we say and what we do. look them up and see for yourself---I know what your going to find.

I find it comical that you profess to know so much of what the founding fathers intended, but can not accept their own words as proof that your thinking is wrong.

You make comments with no substance to back what you say and offer up attacks in exchange.

Perhaps a mirror would assist you in seeing who is approaching this with a closed mind.

I have however enjoyed the chance to have a debate about this in open forum.

Abbadon: Your parenthetical interpretations of those amendments don't exactly jive with constitutional law.

Never in Supreme Court records to my knowledge will you see anything along the lines of saying that "God's Will should not be bypassed by any law of the land." Every Supreme Court case that deals with the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion pretty much goes along with the stated idea by the Founding Fathers of Separation of Church and State.

However, in reviewing the most well known Supreme Court cases (or summaries of rather) on Freedom of Religion, I find it interesting that in Bob Jones U vs. U.S.A. that the Court basically set the precedent of individual liberties found in the Constitution to be of higher importance than freedom of religion when the two are at odds, as the case stripped Bob Jones U of tax-exempt status because of their beliefs on interracial marriage.

Of course, as I said, I read a summary, not the actual majority opinion, but I'd be curious what precedent is set by this. If bans on gay marriage are eventually considered unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, is it possible that churches/universities that continue to hold to the belief that homosexuality is immoral (and institute policies against homosexuality) could risk their tax-exempt status?

Just a thought. What do you guys think?

I think you are right on the "money ".

God is very unclear about everything. how is it against God's will, if gay marriage has already happened somewhere? can't be against God's will because it happened. God must allow gays to get married.

I swore off this discussion and now popping back in for a second.

I would think that private colleges, clubs, etc. as opposed to public schools, universities, clubs would be able to impose their moral beliefs on all who enter there AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTING GOVERNMENT FUNDS. Should a church deny entrance to someone who disobeys their tenets, then as stated above, their tax exempt status could be revoked.

So sayeth this non-member of the U.S. Supreme Court. :)

YOU ARE ALL SPECIAL IN THE EYES OF fluff
SO SAYTH THE BOOK OF fluff!

*winks @ martian*

***farts on gay marriage***

Wow a lot to respond to here. A lot of retardedness especially regarding the founding fathers. If there was one constant among the founding fathers it was that they did not agree and in fact often vehemently disagreed on nearly every subject. There were many founding fathers who were very religious and there were some who were Deists and possibly secret atheists. But to make the positive statement that the "founding fathers" as a group were one way or another shows a poor understanding of the early history of our nation.

One thing the founders were collectively good at was rationally debating and forging solutions and compromises to situations where they horribly disagreed and the separation of church and state is one of those.

As far as marraige it is undoubtedly a religious institution in it's origins. Whether that matters or not at this point in history is the question. To be quite frank I could not care less whether homosexuals are able to marry or not. However I will argue a few things. Sexual orientation is NOT a Constitutionally protected qualifier such as race/religion etc.... so there is no Constitutional mandate to allow same sex marraige. In fact marraige in general is something that is reserved to the states and people under the 9th and 10th amendments. Comparing the "struggle" for gay marraige to the civil rights movement or even women's suffrage is LAUGHABLE. When gays are having dogs sicked on them and fire hoses turned on them by police we'll talk. In reality homosexuals have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. As a straight man I'm not allowed to marry my friend in order to give him health insurance etc... either.

That being said the Defense of Marraige Act is completely unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that states must respect the laws of other states. This is why your driver's license is valid in other states. So if Massachusettes wants to legalize gay marraige then Texas is just going to have to suck it up.

it's unconstitutional for a state to pass a law that is unconstitutional. sounds like people are being denied information due to some law and they want to create a loophole that will give them access to that information.

get a real job and quit depending on other people to give you hand-outs, and you won't have to worry about whether they die or not, it'll just be sad. pretend marriage male-beotches... i don't want to work for a living dude, i just want somebody to stick it up my wahzoo twice a day...