Gay Marriage

[Ran]

If I recall correctly, then there is nothing against living in a social partnership with your significant other (male/male, female/female) which would allow you leave your possessions entitled to them in case your or they were killed or whatever.

The only difference between a social partnership and marriage is a ring, a vow, and a certificate. Also, married couples do receive tax breaks which has been brought up as the primary drive for homosexual coupling. It's no surprise that the origins are based with money. There is nothing stopping you from having a makeshift wedding, exchanging vows, and what-not. The government will just not recognize your "marriage" and therefore not permit you to the tax breaks.

That's about it.

[SwiftGTiRacer]

I normally don't get that involoved into these conversations but i see alot of people bringing up the bible when it comes to homosexuality so i figured this would help:

The Bible contains only four verses about same gender sexual relations: two in Leviticus and two in the New Testament. Leviticus says that "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22), and "if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Lev 20:13). The same scripture says that cursing your mother and father is also punishable by death (Lev 20:9) as is sex with the wife of a neighbor (Lev 20:10), one's father's wife (Lev 20:11), daughter-in-law (Lev 20:12), both a woman and her mother (20:14), or an animal (Lev 20:15-16). Other acts, punishable by exile, according to Leviticus are seeing family members naked and having sex during menstruation (Lev 20:17-21).

In the New Testament, the opening passages of Romans condemn pagan practices. It then denounces sex with someone of the same gender: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" (Rom 1:26), "and in the same way, also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:27). In addition, verses in 1 Corinthians (6:9-10) and 1 Timothy (1:10) equate "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites" with other sinners such as the "greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers" (1 Cor 6:9-10). But, these two books never offer definitions for these terms.

It is, at best, inaccurate to use scripture to condemn committed, consensual same-gender sexual relationships. The fact that only four verses explicitly address this issue implies that this subject was of relatively little importance to the authors. In contrast, there are more than ten prohibitions in Leviticus against sexual relations during menses and 17 verses on how to make a grain offering. The Hebrew Bible also condemns eating fat (Lev 3:17), touching the bedding of a menstruating woman (Lev 15:20), and cursing one's parents (Lev 20:9, Deut 21:18-21).

Most modern theologians believe that these passages about men having sex with men actually related to the rejection of nearby foreign cults (Lev 20:22-23). Such cults practiced sacred prostitution--often using male prostitutes--during religious observances. Prostitution was an accepted part of urban society during biblical times (see 1 Kings 22:38, Isa 23:16, Prov 7:12, and 9:14); cultic prostitution (or prostitution as part of religious practice) was, however, clearly condemned. Deuteronomy and Numbers contain several prohibitions against such prostitution (Deut 23:18 and Num 25:1-3) but none on same-gender relations. Many theologians believe that Leviticus refers only to the use of male sacred prostitutes, a practice not completely eradicated in the Temple until the reforms of Josiah (1Kings 15:12 22:45; 2Kings 23:7)4

Interestingly, there are several little quoted passages in the Bible that acknowledge sexual contact and love between men. For example, Abraham asks his servant to swear an oath by putting "your hand under my thigh" (Gen 24:2). David, speaking of Jonathan, wrote: "...greatly beloved were you to me, your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Sam 1:26). Indeed, Jonathan and David seem to fall in love at first sight: "...when David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Sam 18:1). And later, "Saul's son Jonathan took great delight in David" ( 1 Sam 19:1).


Swifty

[bigdare23]

I don't like the fact that all the women are getting taken by other women! What? Dick isn't good enough anymore!!!

But on the real note, I couldn't give a damn about what people do in their own personal lives. If the they want to get married, let them. Just keep your kids away!!!

[{X}Echo419]

I don't think the gov't should be licencing*spelling* marriage period. where is that in the constution?

[Hulud]

I normally don't get that involoved into these conversations but i see alot of people bringing up the bible when it comes to homosexuality so i figured this would help:

The Bible contains only four verses about same gender sexual relations: two in Leviticus and two in the New Testament. Leviticus says that "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22), and "if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Lev 20:13). The same scripture says that cursing your mother and father is also punishable by death (Lev 20:9) as is sex with the wife of a neighbor (Lev 20:10), one's father's wife (Lev 20:11), daughter-in-law (Lev 20:12), both a woman and her mother (20:14), or an animal (Lev 20:15-16). Other acts, punishable by exile, according to Leviticus are seeing family members naked and having sex during menstruation (Lev 20:17-21).

In the New Testament, the opening passages of Romans condemn pagan practices. It then denounces sex with someone of the same gender: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" (Rom 1:26), "and in the same way, also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:27). In addition, verses in 1 Corinthians (6:9-10) and 1 Timothy (1:10) equate "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites" with other sinners such as the "greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers" (1 Cor 6:9-10). But, these two books never offer definitions for these terms.

It is, at best, inaccurate to use scripture to condemn committed, consensual same-gender sexual relationships. The fact that only four verses explicitly address this issue implies that this subject was of relatively little importance to the authors. In contrast, there are more than ten prohibitions in Leviticus against sexual relations during menses and 17 verses on how to make a grain offering. The Hebrew Bible also condemns eating fat (Lev 3:17), touching the bedding of a menstruating woman (Lev 15:20), and cursing one's parents (Lev 20:9, Deut 21:18-21).

Most modern theologians believe that these passages about men having sex with men actually related to the rejection of nearby foreign cults (Lev 20:22-23). Such cults practiced sacred prostitution--often using male prostitutes--during religious observances. Prostitution was an accepted part of urban society during biblical times (see 1 Kings 22:38, Isa 23:16, Prov 7:12, and 9:14); cultic prostitution (or prostitution as part of religious practice) was, however, clearly condemned. Deuteronomy and Numbers contain several prohibitions against such prostitution (Deut 23:18 and Num 25:1-3) but none on same-gender relations. Many theologians believe that Leviticus refers only to the use of male sacred prostitutes, a practice not completely eradicated in the Temple until the reforms of Josiah (1Kings 15:12 22:45; 2Kings 23:7)4

Interestingly, there are several little quoted passages in the Bible that acknowledge sexual contact and love between men. For example, Abraham asks his servant to swear an oath by putting "your hand under my thigh" (Gen 24:2). David, speaking of Jonathan, wrote: "...greatly beloved were you to me, your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Sam 1:26). Indeed, Jonathan and David seem to fall in love at first sight: "...when David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Sam 18:1). And later, "Saul's son Jonathan took great delight in David" ( 1 Sam 19:1).


Swifty
man i stated no bible! damnit! lol

[Jaimecbr900]

Just keep your kids away!!!

If it's "OK", why would you need to do that? ;)

[Hulud]

true

[Hulud]

bringin this back up lets see what kind of other people we can bring into this

[Stormhammer]

personally, I'm against it, but to a point I still don't hold any power to decide if its legal or not

[Xan]

If it is marriage in the sacred biblical sense then no. Bible says it's wrong. Then again, it looks good come tax time and everyone is entitled to save a little money. This is one of those "seperation of church and state" things that kind of falls into the grey area IMO.

[JennB]

I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't really care who other people marry, gay or straight. As long as everyone is consenting and no one gets hurt, fine. It's not my business.

The true issue behind gays wanting to marry is certainly not tax breaks, it's the legality of being someone's closest relative. Think about it, you go visit someone in the hospital and they say "immediate family only"... if you're gay and have been with someone for 15 years, you're still not technically family. If someone gets hurt in a car accident, the other cannot make decisions for them because they are not legally family... no matter how long they have been together or how much they truly love each other. Then there are the cases with kids. In gay couples, only one person gets the parental rights, if something happens to that person, who knows what happens to the child, it depends on the one person's family. If they don't agree with the lifesyle, they can easily just take the child from the person they have always lived with or if there is no other family, the child can go into the care of the courts while things are decided. If you are married, it's automatic, nothing changes just one parent is gone. Think of things like schools calling parents, if you are not legally their parent, they can't call you. The legal areas are vast... not just kids and hosptial visits but a lot of things that married couples can do that two people who are not related can't do.

If people are so scared of the ideas of families being corrupted, sorry, you're too late. Gay couples are going to be together whether you like it or not and look at the state of straight marriage... it's not that great. I would much rather let people do what they want and at least have the chance to be happy. Marriage doesn't cost us anything, it's a personal decision and I don't think it belongs in politics. I can marry any man I want... even one that beats the crap out of me but a gay couple that is happy and has been together for years can't. As for children, I know gay couples raising kids and they are wonderful parents and the family dynamics are amazingly close to those of a straight family. I think they deserve equal rights in that family.

[Jaimecbr900]

^^^^You are right in some points, but not taking some things into consideration in others.

For example:

There are no "statistics" out there in reference to the divorce rate of gay couples. So therefore it is impossible and unfair to compare straight vs gay marriage rates of divorce when only one side is accurate. Yes, we all know that the straight marriages fail 52% of the time, but what measuring stick is there for gay unions?

Just like you know happy gay couples, I've know MANY unhappy gay couples too. So to say that "look at all the straight couples that divorce" as an analogy to how gay couples are better is not a fair statement.

The way I see it is that gay couples want what hetero couples have been afforded for years. Legality of their union affords gays the same rights as hetero couples.

Personally, I'm still a little torn because on one hand I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but on the other I don't like gov't telling me what to do anymore than anyone else.

[JennB]

No, I am taking it into consideration. All marriages have the chance of failure, gay or straight... but I don't feel like that is something for the government to control. I'm saying that there are so many people who say they want to protect the sanctity of marriage, but it seems like that is mostly gone already.

[Ludester]

interesting thread....

if you can uderstand what my location says you know how I feel. But I agree with most of you... its their life so I could care less how they want to fuck it up..... Do what you do....

[ShooterMcGavin]

with all the really serious shit goin on in the world today, i think this debate doesn't even begin to stack up so i really couldn't care less. hell if it means less gay rights parades and gay folks throwing their shit (business) in everyones faces, then i say let them marry :rolleyes:

[Jaimecbr900]

No, I am taking it into consideration. All marriages have the chance of failure, gay or straight... but I don't feel like that is something for the government to control. I'm saying that there are so many people who say they want to protect the sanctity of marriage, but it seems like that is mostly gone already.

Well but remember that part of the reason for the firestorm this issue has become is because the "sanctity" they are referring to is a biblical one. So that opens up the ole separation of church and state thing again.

Some people believe that marriage is a union that is blessed by God because he ordaned it. Therefore, some people take offense to gays marrying each other because it cheapens their own vows somehow because they are doing something that is clearly not looked upon positively in the bible.

Again, it's a sensitive issue because you have so many people in polar opposites of the debate. One day I feel like most of you, let them do whatever they want who am I to decide. The next I feel like there has to be some kind of end. If not, what's next? People protesting because they can't marry their sister or their goat or something? I mean seriously, how could you tell them "NO"? They could argue that it is their right to marry anyone since there is no clear definition of what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to marriage.

[ShooterMcGavin]

^^^with reference to having no end to things, will it matter if we do make laws making it illegal? i mean seriously, if there's one thing we can be certain of, it's that ppl will do whatever the hell they want, no matter what resistance there is or isn't (although that will determine the amount of bitching that will be heard).

[Jaimecbr900]

^^^with reference to having no end to things, will it matter if we do make laws making it illegal? i mean seriously, if there's one thing we can be certain of, it's that ppl will do whatever the hell they want, no matter what resistance there is or isn't (although that will determine the amount of bitching that will be heard).

Well I wasn't implying that the law would end any actions. I was just saying that it could set a bad precedent. What if a person wanted to legally marry their sister? What if they wanted to marry an animal? How can you tell those people "no" when they could simply say, "well, there is no real definition of marriage under the eyes of the law...."

So it's not that the law would keep people from being with each other. To me, it's more about setting a definite boundary and definition once and for all in order to keep from having to hash it out over and over and over again anytime someone has a different idea of who or what they should be allowed to legally marry.

[ShooterMcGavin]

^^^yet therein lies the problem, who's to say what should be what "once and for all"? i mean hell here we were in the history of our civilization thinking we knew damn well (and once and for all) that a marriage is that of a union between a male and a female (although in some cultures/places it was a male and multiple females). but now all these yrs later all of a sudden we're questioning it again? guess what i'm saying is, things like this, as with all other things in this world, will be effected by evolution both in people and culture/societies.

[Jaimecbr900]

Well but something has to be done since it's on the table. You can no longer ignore it.

Look at what happened out in Iraq. We didn't put Saddam away back in 91. Some people said that was a mistake, others said that was fair. Look at it now. We're having to spend a gazillion dollars and how many unnecessary lives to cure a problem that should have been resolved back over 15 yrs ago. Why? Because it wasn't resolved once and for all.

Same thing is going to happen to this issue. We can sweep it under the rug, but next time it surfaces it will be worse than it is now. Decide once and for all what the definition of legal marriage is and be done with it.

[ShooterMcGavin]

^^^troo troo, but using saddam and iraq as an example is not wise imho (after all, i for one still argue that we didn't have to go in this time to "put him away for good"). but yeah, take care of it since it's on the table, but i still don't care which way they go. it's a damned if u do damned if u don't thing i believe since no matter what decision they make, a large group of ppl will be left not satisfied and will still keep up the bitching.

[Jaimecbr900]

Very true.

[ShooterMcGavin]

^^^glad we're in concurrence :goodjob: