No, that's exactly what Bush is trying to prevent...

I personally dont care if gays get married. Yeah the idae is disgusting, but it doesnt hurt me or anyone else outside the relationship. The country is about freedom(haha) so they should have the right to get married if they want.

Lets ban anyone whose testicles have been crushed!

Here are seven more potential Constitutional Amendments.


No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord (Duet 23:2)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:17)

Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:18)

You shall not let a sorceress live. (Ex 22:17 )

When a man strikes his male or female slave in the eye and destroys the use of the eye, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the eye (Ex 21:26)

You shall not partake of any fat or any blood. (Lev 3:17)

Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard. (Lev 19:27)

true...i agree with you all the way.

DonsAdvisor...Any poor schmuck who has had his testicles crushed has already been through enough without being barred from heaven!!

I live in Sandoval County in New Mexico. Yeah, you may have read about us in Newsweek. We made national news the past few weeks because our County Clerk was issuing marriage licenses to gay couples before the Attorney General was able to make a ruling about the legality of such an act. Now, the people that were married are worried their union may not be legal and the Governer is now looking into the issue.

My two cents:

Point #1 - I don't judge a person by their sexual orientation. I think there is much more to a person than whether or not they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual(more nowadays than you think) etc...

Point #2 - I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. The Church preaches marriage as the union between a man and a woman. But imagine a gay couple that has been together for a number of years, say 20 years, and have not been able to benefit the same as a heterosexual couple but all this time have been living together and supporting one another. Should one homosexual be able to provide insurance benefits to their partner as hetero couples do?

Maybe because of this, there should be some kind of "Cohabitation Agreement" which makes gay couples union legal. Call it cohabitation, marriage...who cares?

Point #3 - Gay couples are already adopting children whether they are allowed to be married or not. We have not been able to stop this. So by not allowing them to marry, are we putting the cart before the horse?

I have some traditional beliefs. I hope my daughter will always be raised by her mother and her father. But I also remember the day I found out for certain my mother was a lesbian when I was about 11 years old. We had a woman living with us for years and they wore rings and celebrated their anniversary. I dealt with strong feelings all my teenage life about homosexuality and finally came to the conclusion that as long as my mother was happy, it didn't matter who it was - or what gender they were. She is to my knowledge still dating women. If she wanted to marry one? Heck, I know a county clerk who is still taking applications for marriage licenses....

Just not so sure how I like the sound of "I now pronounce you Wife and Wife...."

Excellent point.

For those who are interested and can grasp the implications...here is a link to an excellent article I came across which in my opiinon addresses the issue beautifully.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37331

The simplicity with which this whole thing is being viewed, is frankly quite chilling. Sorry folks, but in the long run I do not think that changing the definition of marriage will be a good thing.

AppleOnYa

Well Apple, he makes a few fair points--I'll give him that.

But let's take it from who it comes. This appears to be a website devoted to a right-wing Christian viewpoint. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't agree with it. I don't care for any religous group attempting to foist their morals on us through legislation.

In another article in the commentary section of this site, the author says the following about same-sex marriage:

"This is the single greatest issue Americans face today.".

Bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say?

plawrence:

Your response is not surprising, considering the last line of your post introducing this subject.

On the contrary, it's not an exaggeration at all. That's why I mention the simplistic way at which this is being viewed.

But hey, disagree if you like (while at the same time you admit he makes 'fair' points). Several years from now when the shit hits the fan, then 20/20 vision will tell us who was on the right and left - er, I mean wrong - side.

AppleOnYa

ps - I'll give you one thing, plawrence - at least you bothered to read the article.

Obviously, this is not a one-sided issue, and valid points can be made in support of either argument.

Yeah, he made some good points. Anything that sparks controversy usually has decent arguments on both sides, otherwise there's nothing controversial about it.

But c'mon...Do you really think that this is the single most important issue that Americans face today?

How about a few of the following:

--Making our country safe from the threats of terrorism
--The millions and millions of Americans who live in poverty
--The pitiful state of public education almost everywhere in this country
--Should they make a Godfather Part 4?

Just to name a few.

Well, all of those issues are still out there, being addressed and debated every moment of every day (including the last, most important one that you list ). You'll notice that the country hasn't stopped in its tracks yet because of this subject.

But it's snowballing very quickly, every day another State seems to get on the bandwagon. To the people out there who want what they want when they want it, there are NO other issues, NO other concerns.

While other things are important, somebody out there has got to have the balls to take this on. The President and a very few in the Senate have started, but they need support and they're not getting it. It's a sad, sad day...

Again plawrence, while we appreciate your bringing the topic up here on the Board, you (and many others) are looking at this very one-dimensionally; not considering future circumstances.

Bill O'Reilly may have been exaggerating the other day, but wasn't too far off the mark when he stated last week that if the tide turns against protecting the definition of marriage, 10 years from now, somebody could marry a duck if they felt like it.

Apple

So if someone wanted to marry a duck, what would be so terrible.

Seriously; I'm not trying to be facetious here.

Who would care, or why would anyone care?

Because the duck would be on his or hers spouse's health plan at work?
Because the duck would inherit all the spouse's assets of the spouse if the spouse dies before the duck does? (People leave money to their pets all the time).

As far as the "people who want what they want when they want it" having "no other concerns", well, that's very true, but it applies to all people who feel very strongly one way or another about any issue, not just the proponents of same-sex marriage.

I will say, though, that it might be worth the price of admission to see the marriage consumated.

Which reminds me: There are still some ridiculous sodomy laws on the books, which, in some cases I'm sure, make it against the law to have sex with animals other than humans. I'm sure you know that in one state (Texas was it?) laws against oral and anal sex were recently repealed. Why should anyone care about that? (Hmmm, maybe a subject for a new thread....).

It's all part of being perched atop the slippery slope, ready to start sliding. First we'll ban same-sex marriage. And I'm sure that those who oppose same-sex marriage also oppose same-sex sexual relations, so they can go to work on banning that next. And I bet the same people deep down inside oppose sexual relations between members of different races, so that will be the next to go.

Anyway, to go in a slightly different direction: I'm not sure, but I think you kinda begged my question up there...

"Do you really think that this is the single most important issue that Americans face today?"

And the original question, "Do we really need a constitutional amendment for all this?"

I read the entire article - with an open mind I might add. I do open my mind because I feel even though I have very traditional views on some things in life, often times I am also very realistic about these things and others as well.

The thing I most object to in the article is the "postmodern licentious, amoral culture" we live in. Amoral? We have been fed to the dogs already?? Is there not good in our society anymore? By saying the above quote, this issue now becomes a morality issue.

So then - if people consider me to be an "immoral" person because I may participate in what society thinks are "immoral" acts, should I be banned from seeking to be married?

In that case, then strippers, swingers, compulsive gamblers and alchoholics would forever be single.

The reality is homosexuals loving each other is alive and well. Amoral? Perhaps in the eyes of some people. I have to agree with plawrence that maybe we have bigger fish to fry. Thus my stand that maybe we explore into cohabitation laws.

Oh, sorry...didn't mean to ignore your direct questions.

If you look at it in just in terms of same sex marriage...NO.

If you look at it in terms of future implicatons...YES.

Yes, I believe we do.

But...I'm also realistic enough to know that we're probably not gonna get one.

Cheers,
Apple

Fair enough.

When the duck gets married, you wanna go?

You kidding?

I'll be the one marrying the duck!!



AppleOnYa

I bet it would be that duck who does all those TV commericals.- AFFLECK!

What "future implications"? I read that article, and it took 730 words to dance around the question, with repetitive verbal diarrhea, and it provided no real answer.

What follows is not directed toward Apple:

God made us in His image. All of us. He is the judge and jury, not some fallible human society wearing robes and wigs.

I'm a Christian, raised Catholic (now in recovery - lol) and I am fairly spiritual. Spiritual, not necessarily religious. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus. But I do not necessarily believe in all the Church Doctrine.

And I surely do NOT believe in hypocrisy.

The same people who so disapprove of gay relations (and marriage among two same-sex people who may love each other more than anyone else on the planet; even you) -- these people never speak out against the "evils" (according to the same Bible you quote) of premaritial heterosexual relations... or masturbation... or oral/anal sex... or prostitution... let alone divorce -- or any sexual activity not meant for procreation.

Being "queer" is evil, but not every other sexual "deviancy" everyone else enjoys on a daily basis? Bullocks!

Jesus does not specifically address the question of homosexuality, so why should we? Why are such "good, pure" people so concerned with things that DO NOT CONCERN OR MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to them at all?

Why do we feel the "need" to "protect" our society so much that we need to cross the politics-religion line? HOW ON EARTH is some gay couple troubling to ANYONE else? What have they done to YOU?

Basically, I want to know HOW same-sex marriages would interfere with YOUR life... what would YOU lose?

I cannot even believe there's a debate about this; because surely Jesus did not teach Prejudice and Hate at all... What he taught was Compassion and Love for your fellow Man. Many people seem to forget about that.

And hell - even if such lifestyles were "evil" and such people were destined to Hell -- with the adulterers, sodomizers, and those who commit any sexual acts for reasons besides procreation -- STILL, what difference does that make to YOU? You should be happy not to share eternal life with such heathens... Of course, unless you were guilty, yourself.

Who's casting the first stone?

And you, leave Ben Affleck outta this! (Though hey, he and Matt Damon... Not that there's anything wrong with that... )

Oh, did you mean AFLAC...?

I strongly disagree with Gay marriage and/or two people of the same sex making love. It is just a shame to see even Pastors getting married.

In what kind of world are we living in ?

No, no actors. A real duck.

Then, I'll change my screen name to 'AppleQuacks'

Apple

Would sex change marriages still be legal?

1) Have you ever made love to someone of the same sex? I have always lived by the creed not to knock something 'till I've tried it...

2) You wouldn't want the Pastor of your church to promote love and committment to someone for life? You would not see him as a good example or role model? It is much safer to force someone into a life of celibacy? I have often thought they should let the Roman Catholic priests marry and have families, maybe they would resist the urges to play with young boys and girls. I mean c'mon! A lifetime of celibacy????!!!! People can commit to someone on Earth and still commit to God. Better than to feel repression and guilt over physical and emotional needs?

Well I guess the real question here is:
La Dolce Vita are you knocking it and have you tried it? Just joking, sorry

But, I have learned one think. Stay out of threads on Religion and Politics. But since we are talking SEX here and I am a young man with a sex drive, I thought I could post as long as I stay within the side subject limits!

Yo Horndog!!....

The answer to one of your questions is "no".

No, I do not knock it.

Hey, I am 38 years old. By this age, we all have experimented with something or another. I'll spare you the details in public though as people can be so judgemental. However FS, should we ever meet, we can swap stories over a couple of stiff cocktails.

You got it LDV. That you can bank on and the drinks will be on me!

What?! Are you crazy?! No, of course i haven't. However, at least I take into consideration that marriage is a right reserved for a man and a woman. How would a young boy react towards two gay guys or lesbians kissing each other? Where is the Sancticity of marriage? Homosexual relationships are therefore abnormal and unnatural, so they certainly shouldn't be validated by the state and recognized as a form of marriage. Take a look at the fact that Homosexuals do not and cannot lead to the creation of children, which is supposed to be the "natural" consequence of such intimate relationships, especially marriage. Therefore, gay marriage is the greatest moral and social evil.

Peace.

Vito The Godfather: #1 was pretty much a rhetorical question - only to make the point that personally I try not to judge things I know nothing about.

It is a little late to wonder how the kids are going to react - homosexuals have been able to adopt children for years now.

And for the record - I have been married (TO A MAN) for almost 17 years. While it may not be the most old-fashioned or traditional of unions, I do recognize and cherish the sanctity of our marriage.

Peace!