Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Princess Artemis]

But the fact is that a lot of people AREN'T responsible or respectful. It's been that way throughout history, and it's not likely to change. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

 

Re the blood test: it's to make sure everyone is being honest about what venereal diseases they might have (a positive result wouldn't block them from marriage, but it would ensure that both parties were aware). Doubtless something else that could be eradicated if only everyone would be respectful.

So the solution is, punish the respectful and responsible people by catering to the irresponsible (which incidentally gives the government more power)? Yeah, sure, that sounds like the right way to do it. Government wins, the irresponsible get to act irresponsible, and the adults among human kind lose.

 

There you go, with the explanation that the government requires a blood test for straight people to marry because people cannot be trusted in their most intimate relationships without the benevolent government looking over them and ensuring their honesty. Yeah, sorry, that doesn't look very kind to me; it looks like a way for the government to insure its breeding stock is healthy.

 

What I'm trying to argue is there are ways to protect one's rights to see one's spouse without guaranteeing that the government gets involved in every little bit of people's lives. For marriage, it's called common-law. Government has no say in who is married via common-law (although it needs updating so it would allow same-sex), and yet...wow...a married person's rights would be protected. Funny, that. But people don't like it because it requires them to be responsible and the government doesn't like it because it lessens their power.

[Fuzzbucket]

But the fact is that a lot of people AREN'T responsible or respectful. It's been that way throughout history, and it's not likely to change. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

^this^

 

Sadly. And it was always thus and ever more will be so.

 

Common law doesn't hold up when the next of kin issue comes up - things need to be REGISTERED. Sad but true. Otherwise blood relatives start to appear out of the woodwork to challenge wills and so on. Otherwise sure - it would be the answer to everything. BUT - you do have to do something to have such a partnership registered in some way, clearly or it wouldn't need "updating" to "allow" anything. And if not government - who do you register it WITH ?

 

So - what is the difference between that and my suggestion that civil partnerships be the only legally enforceable/registrable/whatever thing - and that ANY kind of pair can partner up ?

[Princess Artemis]

Sadly. And it was always thus and ever more will be so.

 

Common law doesn't hold up when the next of kin issue comes up - things need to be REGISTERED. Sad but true. Otherwise blood relatives start to appear out of the woodwork to challenge wills and so on. Otherwise sure - it would be the answer to everything. BUT - you do have to do something to have such a partnership registered in some way, clearly or it wouldn't need "updating" to "allow" anything. And if not government - who do you register it WITH ?

 

So - what is the difference between that and my suggestion that civil partnerships be the only legally enforceable/registrable/whatever thing - and that ANY kind of pair can partner up ?

Common-law marriage works in that one acts married and then one is married for all purposes of law. What would need to be updated about it is that according to common-law, marriage is a one man one woman sort of affair. No one who is common-law married registers their marriage. They simply act married and thus are recognized to be so by the law. This is different than asking the government permission to get married, where the government can deny this petition. With common-law (so long as the law is updated to reflect same-sex partnership), anyone of age can straight up tell the government what they are and the government has to shut its pie hole and listen. That is how it should be in a land where the people are sovereign over the state.

 

The point of common-law was actually to keep people from acting married and then pretending they weren't when it came to issues where being single would benefit them. It's similar to a New Zealand statute that now has cohabitation lasting more than two years causing, by law, the cohabitors property to become community. That's very similar to common-law marriage, though ideally, common-law marriage would have the rights recognized that state-privileged marriage does--that is, instead of the government granting you the privilege of recognizing your spouse as next of kin, you tell the government, through your actions, that your spouse is your next of kin.

 

So, basically...register? You don't. You are married and everyone including the law recognizes it. Humans do not need to register their relationships in order for them to be real, and they do not need to register them in order for governments to recognize them.

 

That's the main difference between your suggestion and mine--your suggestion still has people seeking the government's permission to marry, so that marriage is still presented as a privilege. Mine has sovereign humans telling their government servitors to recognize their marriages, so that marriage is preserved as the right that it is.

 

ETA: And of course, another problem with common-law are things like how people in North Carolina go and add amendments to their state constitutions to disallow recognizing them (along with civil unions and domestic partnerships), which is so fundamentally wrong-headed I cannot even begin to fathom what got into their heads. Why in the world people have to have government tell everyone else how to run their lives, when their lives were running just fine and dandy before, boggles my mind.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Fuzzbucket]

Well EXACTLY - so - recognised BY WHOM ? When you enter that hospital and your mother says she is your next of kin - you have NO ammunition. Everyone including the law recognises it - how do you make them ?

 

Scotland has that automatic thing like NZ, too - but when next of kin has come up, there have been times that, as you can't PROVE it....

 

It's an ideal - but that is all it ever can be, really. (You don't have to have PERMISSION to marry, mind, anyway. It is extraordinarily rare for anyone to be flat out refused, AFAIK.)

[Princess Artemis]

Well EXACTLY - so - recognised BY WHOM ? When you enter that hospital and your mother says she is your next of kin - you have NO ammunition. Everyone including the law recognises it - how do you make them ?

 

Scotland has that automatic thing like NZ, too - but when next of kin has come up, there have been times that, as you can't PROVE it....

 

In times when common-law marriage was more common and state-sanctioned marriage less common, I believe one was recognized much the same way they would be in other situations where it was necessary to establish the truth: preponderance of the evidence. Presenting their tax forms where they have been filing jointly (that is important in common-law because it's all about acting married--what do married people do? They file joint tax returns, for one...) Present forms upon which prove you have joint bank accounts. Show that you are who you say you are if they don't believe it. If the IRS has been accepting joint tax returns, then the IRS recognizes you as spouses. If a bank opens a joint bank account, it recognizes you as spouses. Everyone in your neighborhood knows you live together and claim to be married, they recognize you as spouses. If you've had a ceremony, the officiator can be called upon to state that they officiated at your wedding. Another way, in the past, was to show the family Bible. I'm sure there could be drawn up a legal equivalent now, something which one does not have to petition the government to grant. All of this ought to be plenty to demonstrate a couple is married without having to get a marriage license. And if the couple isn't married...? Well, they are now! If the law doesn't respect that preponderance of evidence over a birth certificate, there is something wrong with the law.

 

Having the law recognize something isn't the same as registering with the government. The law simply recognizes that I have the right to free speech, for instance. I must register to drive a vehicle, on the other hand. That's what a license is. It is permission to do X, and in the case of marriage licenses, it is governmental permission to marry. Obviously, anyone who needs a license to do something is not recognized as having the right to do it.

 

Yes, it's a bit of a hassle, but, y'know, all those things are really things that had to be done anyway. And yes, there are times when it won't work. Guess what? In lands with state sanctioned marriage, it doesn't always work either.

 

It's an ideal - but that is all it ever can be, really. (You don't have to have PERMISSION to marry, mind, anyway. It is extraordinarily rare for anyone to be flat out refused, AFAIK.)

 

Loving vs. Virginia ORLY? If people have such an easy time getting permission to marry, than why is this thread even here?

 

It is an ideal. I don't think that's all it ever can be, however. Sure, it will likely need more government interference than I'm fond of, but I really do not see how desiring for government to stop interfering with our human rights, and pointing out a fairly workable way in order for it to do that instead of stealing our rights and then giving them back to us in the form of privileges is idealistic.

[Fuzzbucket]

In times when common-law marriage was more common and state-sanctioned marriage less common, I believe one was recognized much the same way they would be in other situations where it was necessary to establish the truth: preponderance of the evidence. Presenting their tax forms where they have been filing jointly (that is important in common-law because it's all about acting married--what do married people do? They file joint tax returns, for one...) Present forms upon which prove you have joint bank accounts. Show that you are who you say you are if they don't believe it. If the IRS has been accepting joint tax returns, then the IRS recognizes you as spouses. If a bank opens a joint bank account, it recognizes you as spouses. Everyone in your neighborhood knows you live together and claim to be married, they recognize you as spouses. If you've had a ceremony, the officiator can be called upon to state that they officiated at your wedding. Another way, in the past, was to show the family Bible. I'm sure there could be drawn up a legal equivalent now, something which one does not have to petition the government to grant. All of this ought to be plenty to demonstrate a couple is married without having to get a marriage license. And if the couple isn't married...? Well, they are now! If the law doesn't respect that preponderance of evidence over a birth certificate, there is something wrong with the law.

 

Having the law recognize something isn't the same as registering with the government. The law simply recognizes that I have the right to free speech, for instance. I must register to drive a vehicle, on the other hand. That's what a license is. It is permission to do X, and in the case of marriage licenses, it is governmental permission to marry. Obviously, anyone who needs a license to do something is not recognized as having the right to do it.

 

Yes, it's a bit of a hassle, but, y'know, all those things are really things that had to be done anyway. And yes, there are times when it won't work. Guess what? In lands with state sanctioned marriage, it doesn't always work either.

 

 

 

Loving vs. Virginia ORLY? If people have such an easy time getting permission to marry, than why is this thread even here?

 

It is an ideal. I don't think that's all it ever can be, however. Sure, it will likely need more government interference than I'm fond of, but I really do not see how desiring for government to stop interfering with our human rights, and pointing out a fairly workable way in order for it to do that instead of stealing our rights and then giving them back to us in the form of privileges is idealistic.

Ah yes, that case. And also gays, right now.

 

Even so - joint tax returns - on the way OUT over personal privacy issues (I haven't filed jointly in Canada or the UK since about 1975.) And while we DO happen to have one join bank account - mostly we manage our own money. Not least because when one of us dies, the other will need their very own credit rating etc. My mother in law had a hell of a time getting a Visa card when her husband died, as everything had been in his name or - JOINT. But also - I can cheerily go overdrawn without having to answer to anyone else, and he can't see what I paid for his Christmas gifts on his credit card statement - privacy in finance is rather nice, we find.

 

Anyway - the IRS is - government. A government agency recognising a partnership, if that is the way you file your returns. The government makes the laws under which these things need to be accepted, so where is the real distinction ?

[Princess Artemis]

Ah yes, that case. And also gays, right now.

 

Even so - joint tax returns - on the way OUT over personal privacy issues (I haven't filed jointly in Canada or the UK since about 1975.) And while we DO happen to have one join bank account - mostly we manage our own money. Not least because when one of us dies, the other will need their very own credit rating etc. My mother in law had a hell of a time getting a Visa card when her husband died, as everything had been in his name or - JOINT. But also - I can cheerily go overdrawn without having to answer to anyone else, and he can't see what I paid for his Christmas gifts on his credit card statement - privacy in finance is rather nice, we find.

 

Anyway - the IRS is - government. A government agency recognising a partnership, if that is the way you file your returns. The government makes the laws under which these things need to be accepted, so where is the real distinction ?

Of course, if you tell the government that you are married, the government will know and should recognize it. As it is now though, they won't recognize a marriage unless a person asks them pretty please with sugar on top if they'll please let them marry pleeeeeease? And right now, the government is saying "NO" quite loudly to a good many people. That's what happens when we give up our rights and let the government apportion them back to us as privileges. Some people get them denied.

 

There is a huge difference between telling the people who work for you (i.e., the government) that they need to recognize your new status as married and if they don't, telling the lawmakers (who are also your employees) that they must update laws, and asking your overseers for permission to exercise your rights. One is the acts of a sovereign person, the other is...not. A government that purposefully obfuscates such a right as marriage and only doles it out to those it deems acceptable is treating people like children who can't make their own decisions and must be protected from themselves.

 

If that does not bother you, then it doesn't. It does bother others. And if there is a system that gets people what they want and satisfies those of us who are mighty displeased about the government taking our rights and convincing us they are really privileges, then it shouldn't hurt any to go the way of more freedom and less deceit.

 

I'm pretty sure that you, personally, have other ways that you could demonstrate that you're married, enough that any system that had its head on straight wouldn't have needed to grant you the status to recognize you have the status.

[Fuzzbucket]

Well, kinda - I have a pretty green paper It DOES save a lot of time. And while I would rather have registered a civil partnership, I have no quarrel with official registration. I can't say I saw it as asking for permission, more a matter of stumping up a couple of pounds for the bit of paper.

[TheDragonJames]

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. ~Inappropriate comment removed.~

Edited May 14, 2012 by _Z_

[Red Dragonette]

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

And look at what's happened to our planet. Earth is suffering from human overpopulation. We're using up resources faster than ever, because there's way too many people needing to benefit from them. That rule in the bible is why we have global warming, animals losing their habitats and becoming endangered/extinct, lack of jobs, traffic, rising crime rates (read in sociology that small groups like tribes tend to be more peaceful than a humongous society), and all that other mess. And for your information, not all homosexuals are wicked villains like you think them to be. Some of them are actually quite nice and they'll never hurt a fly. Do your research before you start saying something offensive, you bigot!

Edited May 13, 2012 by Red Dragonette

[Syaoransbear]

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

Maybe your god. What about people of other religions? Why should a country that doesn't follow a specific religion have laws based on the teachings of one religion?

 

Marriage was a legal institute before it was a religious one. So why based it off of any religion, let alone just yours?

 

Also, marriage is joining two people together. It's got nothing to do with children. I'm getting married and I'm hoping to remain childless. And I know more unmarried people with children than I do married people with children. The only time the children acted poorly was when their parent(s) raised them that way, not because of their parents marital status. You don't produce good children just by being married.

[Awdz]

Short version: I think gays should be able to legally marry one person same as any heterosexual can.

 

Long version:

I believe God created male and female both for propagation of the species and to help us learn to focus on someone other than ourselves as important in our lives. This is expanded many times over when one takes on the responsibility of being a parent, in a way that I believe has to be experienced to be really understood.

 

That said, I think God uses evolution to bring about change within species, and humans are not exempt from this. Consider the original command, "Be fruitful and multiply" in context - few humans, huge world to fill up. Nowadays the situation has changed: the world is teeming with people, so evolutionarily it makes sense for more to be gay now to reduce the population boom.

 

Consider also the number of babies given up for adoption who never actually get adopted (I think I heard that over 95% never get adopted?) - in my mind, if we let the gay couples adopt children as readily as heterosexual couples can, it would be help for solving the issue of unplaced children too,

and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

(By the way, did that "mongols" mean the stereotypical hoards that terrorized neighboring people? Seems like a kind of racist descriptor to me.) To my way of thinking, it would be best to let the gay couple be officially married for better home stability.

 

Ultimately I think God wants us to live together in love & harmony. I believe anyone who thinks it is better to promote hate/violence instead of love/tolerance completely missed what Jesus came to teach us.

 

I do not think promiscuity shows sexual partners loving respect, but rather cheapens what could be a beautiful part of an intensely close relationship. It seems to me that denying someone the right to marry encourages promiscuity. I would far rather see demonstrations against Playboy than against gay marriage.

 

I also believe that since our bodies are temporary but our souls are eternal, it does not matter as much about the types of physical relationships we have nearly as much as it matters what kind of spiritual relationships we have. Which way builds healthier spiritual relationships, enabling love to be recognized or spewing hatred at what is not traditional?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[Switch]

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

Well, if marriage is strictly about children, what of heterosexual couples who won't have children or can't have them? Should we ban them from marriage?

 

And I find it pretty dang rude if you're implying all children raised by homosexual couples will grow up to be thieves and evil people just because their parents are the same gender. I know someone with lesbian mothers, and she's very nice and a good person. Being raised by two women wasn't bad for her or mentally scarring at all, and she turned out absolutely fine.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Switch

[Princess Artemis]

rising crime rates (read in sociology that small groups like tribes tend to be more peaceful than a humongous society)

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with that. You need to do your research.

 

Marriage was a legal institute before it was a religious one.

 

I am actually curious what the source is on this. Marriage as an institution existed before the Code of Hammurabi, which is one of the earliest extant law systems in the world. Hammurabi didn't invent it, and Babylonians were not known for their strict separation of church and state. So, what's your source that marriage was legal before it was religious?

[tyto_alba]

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

You make it sound like same-sex parents will raise their kids to be bad people. I find that... Kind of offensive, actually.

 

And as a non-Christian, why should I follow a supposed law/guideline set down by a supposed god that I don't believe in? :U

[Princess Artemis]

It certainly sounds like they are saying gay people would raise a new Mongol Horde...when I read it, I thought the English didn't follow enough though. Made more sense for it to read: no gay marriage, and also, straight people, don't raise your kid to be Genghis Khan.

 

Though 'thieves, mongols, and other evils' is a really lousy way to say 'the purpose of marriage is to raise good kids'. Which of course has issues in its own right.

[hazeh]

Well, if marriage is strictly about children, what of heterosexual couples who won't have children or can't have them? Should we ban them from marriage?

 

And I find it pretty dang rude if you're implying all children raised by homosexual couples will grow up to be thieves and evil people just because their parents are the same gender. I know someone with lesbian mothers, and she's very nice and a good person. Being raised by two women wasn't bad for her or mentally scarring at all, and she turned out absolutely fine.

I dunno if friendly friend Switch here was referring to me, but I fall under that description.

 

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

 

 

I have two moms, and they have raised me together since I was 18 months old (one of them is actually my birth mom, too). We adopted a little girl four years ago who was neglected and abandoned by her straight birth parents.

 

Yep, sounds like "good stewards" and "responsibility" to me.

 

I am most definitely a thief though. I just happened to steal the heart of the prettiest woman on Earth, ohohoho ;D

[loudwhitenoise]

Yeah, it's almost getting bad enough that people would need to apply for a license to say that they are competent enough to raise a child D: just the numbers of children being born into situations that are bad for them with uncaring parents... but thats another topic; this isn't the place for me to rant about irresponsible people.

 

So I was having thoughts, see, and I was reminded of the Unicorn Jelly faq page and how it was talking about homosexual ratios as defined by a number, lemme rummage a bit, find what I'm thinking of,,

 

Here we go: "...in the America of the 1950's when Kinsey and Pomeroy did the Kinsey Report, the average Kinsey number was around 2. If I remember it was something like 2.2, 2.3 somewhere in that range. Mostly heterosexual, some repressed bisesexual tendancies. very few people came up as either a 1 or a 6 (1 is absolutely het, 6 is absolutely homo)..."

 

"...The why of it is complex. One factor is environmental stress. Homosexuality is caused not by genes, but by prenatal homones. In a nutshell, in animals, including humans, when stress,either emotional or biochemical, is applied as specific 'windows' in fetal development. In rats, this can be done with as little stres as moving a cage from one room to another. The key is that the stress has to occur at just the right moment in brain development. There are three such windows. One controls internal gender, or gender identity. Another is where the brain develops the function if which sex it will be attracted to directly. The third determines behavoral characteristics such as nurturance behavior...in humans, what we could call core masculine or feminine traits.

 

Any combination is possible. You could end up with a straight man who exhibits feminine behavior, or a gay man who is tough and butch as hell. You could end up with partial results...a bisexual woman who is very feminine, or a straight woman who is very masculine seeming..."

The article is a bit longer than that so I just copied the most relevant part. http://www.unicornjelly.com/bestforum1.html#HomoDomo

 

But this fascinated me, what do you guys think?

[Rosedamai]

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

 

1. God has nothing to do with marriage. Plenty of cultures out there without your god intervening in our history and social norms until modern times.

 

2. So we should all take infertility tests before getting married? Are infertile people not allowed to be married any more? Interesting. Do you have a way to determine this?

 

3. Tell that to the hundreds of people who grew up with heterosexual parents and turned out to be murderers, thieves, etc. Last time I checked, that had to do with your morality, not with what sexual tendencies your parents had. Do you mean to say that thieves and such all grew up under parents who were both secretly homosexual? Because I think that's ridiculous.

 

4. As a person who may have a Mongolian ancestor, I find that rude. How would you like it if I wrote a sentence with something like "And not raise them to be rapists, arsonists, and Evil White Men, who brought about a widespread genocide in the American continent"? Not to go into what Genghis Khan did and how other cultures might view them, but still it's a tad insensitive, isn't it?

 

 

I am most definitely a thief though. I just happened to steal the heart of the prettiest woman on Earth, ohohoho ;D

 

*sings the "congratulations" song*

Edited May 13, 2012 by ylangylang

[Princess Artemis]

Yeah, it's almost getting bad enough that people would need to apply for a license to say that they are competent enough to raise a child D: just the numbers of children being born into situations that are bad for them with uncaring parents... but thats another topic; this isn't the place for me to rant about irresponsible people.

Suggesting this in a thread all about how some people are fighting for basic human rights is...really quite contradictory, y'know.

[Zaxian]

4. As a person who may have a Mongolian ancestor, I find that rude. How would you like it if I wrote a sentence with something like "And not raise them to be rapists, arsonists, and Evil White Men, who brought about a widespread genocide in the American continent"? Not to go into what Genghis Khan did and how other cultures might view them, but still it's a tad insensitive, isn't it?

I rather assumed the OP had a typing (thinking?) fail and really meant "mongrels" rather than "mongols". But I guess it's definitely believable that someone with such sweeping homophobic views (gay people will raise 'evil' children? Really?) could also be a racist.

 

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

... I'm vaguely amused by you not wanting to use the word 'sex'. Especially given that you then suggest that the only purpose of marriage is procreation, which is generally achieved by, you guessed it, SEX. Wahay.

[Miyasha]

http://lyricalpun.tumblr.com/post/22873490...-im-sorry-but-i

 

checkmate.

 

(the mention of leviticus in this link is where the whole argument about god says two dudes can't marry comes from. leviticus is/was a holy code.)

 

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

 

of course this really only applies to people who believe christ is the son of god and died for humanity's sins.

[philpot123]

http://lyricalpun.tumblr.com/post/22873490...-im-sorry-but-i

 

checkmate.

 

(the mention of leviticus in this link is where the whole argument about god says two dudes can't marry comes from. leviticus is/was a holy code.)

 

 

 

of course this really only applies to people who believe christ is the son of god and died for humanity's sins.

It's not only prohibited in the OT. And we are not "freed" from OT prohibitions on murder and theft are we? Clearly some of the OT law still applies. But even so, Leviticus is certainly not the only place the argument stems from.

[Miyasha]

So homosexuality and its consummation is the same as murder and theft to you? Murder and theft have victims. Homosexuality and gay marriage does not have victims.

 

Do you cherry pick codes and laws and rules and guidelines to suit your needs and lifestyle? I find it hard to believe you adhere to every rule the bible has set out for you. So why do you choose some and not others? Under what basis do you do this? Does that not weaken your argument for following one?

 

It's one thing to disagree with the "act" of homosexuality and choose not to participate, hell even complain about it. It's another thing entirely to block people from having the same rights as you do because you follow a belief system. Not everyone shares yours. Why should we be held back in our personal lives, how we choose to make our families, because you disagree with it?

 

(and before bestiality and pedophilia get brought up as they inevitably do in these discussions for some reason beyond my true capacity to comprehend; pedophile has a victim, as does bestiality... then there's the issue of consent. two consenting adults, regardless of race or gender or religious affiliations, should have the legal right to marry.)

 

Of course, can't we just call it "civil union" or something? Separate but equal, right? Why does that sound so familiar?

[philpot123]

So homosexuality and its consummation is the same as murder and theft to you? Murder and theft have victims. Homosexuality and gay marriage does not have victims.

 

Do you cherry pick codes and laws and rules and guidelines to suit your needs and lifestyle? I find it hard to believe you adhere to every rule the bible has set out for you. So why do you choose some and not others? Under what basis do you do this? Does that not weaken your argument for following one?

 

There is certainly a victim, from the Christian perspective. 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

 

 

No, there is no cherry picking. The difference is the punishment enacted under the OT law.

 

As I said before, I want the government out of marriage altogether. If two dudes/women want to have a marriage ceremony, go for it. I just don't think marriage should be a legal entity at all.