"love"? Why do you say it like that? Is what they feel for their partner not love? Is it different? Is it wrong?

I don't consider sexual perversion to be love.

My answer to your question is that they have a right to get married in a church if they so chose.

Are you saying that civil government should require churches to "marry" homosexuals?

I'm not saying churches should be required to do something they don't want to do. But if a church chooses to allow gay marriage they should not get hateful mail or anything like that for doing what they believe to be okay &/or right.

My biggest thing & the reason behind why I posted this (which if you read the first page) is that they should not lie to try & get what they want.

My biggest thing & the reason behind why I posted this (which if you read the first page) is that they should not lie to try & get what they want.

My understanding is that the advertisement was placed by a political group, not a church. And you didn't even address the concerns of religious liberty brought about by the other posters on this forum. So I'm going to pose this question directly...

Should individuals be forced by the government to recognize same-sex "marriage" even though it goes against their religious beliefs?

How are they going to be forced to do anything? Making it legal doesn't mean that people are going to have to go to a church & witness every gay marriage.

Making it legal means that homosexuals are given the rights that every other american has. Discrimination is wrong. That is what this is.

How are they going to be forced to do anything? Making it legal doesn't mean that people are going to have to go to a church & witness every gay marriage.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about what goes on outside of church. In government institutions, businesses, and so forth, there will be great conflict over religious liberty. It doesn't sound like you've really thought this through.

Making it legal means that homosexuals are given the rights that every other american has. Discrimination is wrong. That is what this is.

I disagree. I think some forms of discrimination are okay, even morally required. Other forms of discrimination are wrong. And of course I believe that homosexual behavior is evil, so I see no problem restricting the legal definition of marriage to its proper ethical form.

WHAT?! some forms of discrimination are okay? Are you high? What possible form of discrimination is okay & morally required?1

WHAT?! some forms of discrimination are okay? Are you high? What possible form of discrimination is okay & morally required?1

I can see that my last response obviously blew a circuit in your system. But that's not surprising given that most Americans have been indoctrinated into the insidious doctrine of "equality" which has all but ruined our once great nation.

People discriminate all the time. When I apply for jobs and I'm rejected because I don't meet the qualifications, that's an example of discrimination. Basically, discrimination itself is neither inherently good or bad. It can be both. What determines this is a transcendent moral law which most Americans no longer adhere to anyway. Given the moral degeneration of modern America, the good forms of discrimination have broken down in order to exalt various forms of immorality.

Case in point, the growing acceptance of immoral sexual practices like homosexuality has given us a situation in which there's a movement to formally institutionalize this behavior as a societal norm. The doctrine of "equality" does not exist within a transcendent moral framework. It simply rests on the faulty idea that human beings are inherently the same and are entitled to the same things.

I know athiests who are married. It's not just for financial reasons. It's because they want to make a commitment to each other. To say in front of their friends and family that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. I'm sure the same goes for homosexuals.

The legality of it is relevant though, even if there aren't kids involved. What if one of them dies? Or if one has an accident and ends up on life support? Am I not right in saying that in the US, end of life decisions in such situations are usually made by the next of kin (usually the husband or wife)? That situation could get very tricky if the couple are not legally married (in the UK however, such decisions are made by doctors, not families).

Well, yeah those are certainly thoughts, but who marries on the off chance that one of you will die? That's not marrying for the right reason.

For the religious reasons and the commitment - that's why I support gay marriage (and heterosexual marriage) in the first place.

I lol'd @ "They're infringing on our rights!"

Ahh, I keep forgetting very few humans are mere mortals.

It's spelled "atheists" and now you can add one more married atheist to your list (me.)

I'm sorry, I made a typo. It's easy to do when you're typing on a Blackberry!

I figured, I was just busting your balls a little.

Oh yes. There have been cases where homosexual cops (male and female) have died in the field, and any benefits or property that was left for their partner didn't carry over. There have been right-to-die issues (although less publicized) with homosexual couples as well. Even the most diligently worded wills can be overturned in the right legal light.

What's religion got to do with it?

Can't a marriage merely be a declaration of devotion to eachother and the rest of the world that one is committed to spending one's entire life with another person, regardless of any situational adversity?

To be frank, your indset of the whole thing is not widespread, thankfully. Marriage is NOT just a "legal thing." Marriage should, I think we all, or 98% of us, would agree that marriage should be a union based on love. This is why gay marriage supporters push for gay marriage - because they believe that they have a right to love each other, thus the right to get married. And for many, love is a spiritual thing. Christians believe that God is love, and so when we love someone, if we truly love them, then God is there, in the midst of the union. This is why I don't believe in the marital union of homosexuals. God would not be there in that union because in His Word the act of homosexuality is a sin and God does not abide where sin runs rampant.

Marriage is a spiritual thing, thus it is a religious thing, for most people.

I didn't say that they weren't marrying for love but to some people love isn't necessarily a feeling based on religion. I feel that in this statement you are telling me that because I do not believe in God that if I were to get married to a man I love that my marriage would also not be worth it to you. My point is that the legal stuff is important in this argument because they already love each other, to me that is the pure base of marriage. I know that is not always the case, but the same goes for many heterosexual marriages.

Yeah... I totally agree. I dunno this whole thing has been frustrating me lately. We have been talking about this lately in my Human Diversity class lately. I equate it to thinking about the friends I have of different faiths than the one I used to be. I feel like this would be like someone saying to me that because they believed something different then me that I shouldn't be friends with them or something. So what? They believe something different than me... as long as everyone is respectful of each other I don't think it should matter. That should be the base of this agrument.... if every just respects each other and their views and their comfort levels should it really be that much of a big deal?

It shouldn't be a big deal. Everyone is different. I know I'm not exactly helping by posting this but I have way too many friends that are gay to let read this & not share it & hope to open someones eyes & get them thinking. It's crazy. My cousin is gay & half the family doesn't speak to her because she is. One of my aunts wont allow her to come over unless she leaves her girlfriend at home, so my cousin never comes over. Though she will say that everyone has a right to their own life. I'm tired of the hypocrisy of religious people.

You don't think a person has a right to determine who should be allowed in their own home? Wow, now I have to be tolerant, acceptable of any life style and not only that I have to bring that thing I call sin into the home with my children. I have and you have every right to reject a person to enter our homes for any reason we deem reasonable whether the world sees it that way or not. It is OUR HOME.

A person has that right. You can refuse to let some idea into your home and slam the door on others, however, that is your home. Your limit of power ceases the right to be exercised once it leaves your family and your children.

If the issue of homosexual marriage reached the supreme court, the ruling would have absolutely no religious influence. Government is supposed to remain free from religious bias. If anything, the ruling against same-sex marriage would have to be based on whether or not such marriages are healthy and okay for society (without religious aspects). I.E, would same-sex marriages be healthy? Would the promote traditional values? Would allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt be beneficial to society? Why should we not allow them to marry?

I understand that. What I was trying to say was that don't preach to me about people having the right to live how they see fit & say that you are fine with GLBT & then not allow your FAMILY to come over & to bring their partner. Either you are for it & you don't mind it or you aren't & you do mind it. Hence why I said I don't like the hypocrisy of religious people. Which now I see I should have said some. Grouping all religious people was wrong of me & I am sorry. I did not mean for it to come out like that.

I actually don't have any friends that are gay. I know people that are gay. I just think that people should be able to do what they want as long as it isn't hurting anyone... which i do not believe simply being gay is.

Exactly.

*applause*
Thank you! :]

I appreciate that you think this way, even if you don't have any close GLBT friends or family. I respect you for being able to see it as something that is personal, and not hurting anyone.

Now if only everyone else could see it that way! They don't need to agree, but they need to keep their biggoted viewpoints to themselves. People are so worried about calling it "marriage" because "marriage" it "between a man and a woman. The Garden of Edan had 'Adam and Eve,' not 'Adam and STEVE.'" How ridiculous does that sound? Honestly. I mean...It makes me laugh. I wish all bigots were that funny. :]