Yes
No
igirl said:
The problem I see with same sex marriages being recognized, is where does it stop? How about marriage to a child? Or multiple marriage partners?
Igirl,
I will fight vehemently against the marriage to children and multiple marriages-GUARANTEED!
~Cindy
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -Catherine Aird-
Here's some interesting divorce stats and they were collected and published by a religious organization:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
That is startling that Conservative Christians have more divorces. Seems the Godly don't have a lock on happily ever after.A recent study by the Barna Research Group throws extreme doubt on these estimates. Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The sampling error is within 2 percentage points. The survey found:
11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were much higher than for other faith groups.
George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented: "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."
:
~Cindy
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -Catherine Aird-
Cindy:
Simple: Christians get married the first time. Very few of the Un-Godly bother to get married at all, hense no need for divorce.
Chip
Please define "Un-Godly".
Getting back to the poll question: I really feel that long term relationships deserve the same legal benefits whether between two genders or two of the same gender. I don't think any of us can or should judge a relationship that we are not part of. l do believe that there ought to be some form of legal recognization of that "union" and it should not have to be a second grade or lesser grade union.
When it is an issue of health care or legal decisions after someone is no longer mentally competent (coma? alzheimers?) how can any of us on the outside of a relationship truly know what that individual would have wished? I've read of cases of families (who have long been estranged because of alternate life choices) being given or taking the decision making abilities away from their relative's life partner. (Big argument here for living wills and power of attorney.)
In the U.S. military, I believe there is a rule about if a marriage has lasted X number of years, even a divorced or separated spouse is entitled to a certain amount of survivors' benefits. (This, according to my heterosexual dad, does not cut into the benefits of a second spouse of any number of years.) The supposition, I think, is that that person has emotionally supported the military person and possibly subjugated their own financial opportunities for all those years and should be compensated. I don't know if there is a non-military corollary for men and women who are "married" but it seems to me that something similar would be quite justifiable for long term couples of the same sex.
Simply, I believe that (barring sex or exploitation of minors) legal rights and privileges shouldn't depend on one's sexual preferences.
"The Good Lord gave us mountains so we could learn how to climb". ~ Lonestar
The statement compares divorce rates among conservative Chrisitans to "other faith groups". Surely other faith groups are not "un-godly"!!! Beyond that, most people do in fact get married at least once.chip anderson said:
Cindy:
Simple: Christians get married the first time. Very few of the Un-Godly bother to get married at all, hense no need for divorce.
Chip
Sad that churches don't provide support for divorcing couples though.
atheists? Are they not "un-Godly" as non-believers of God?
Bob V.
Actually, in addition to "marriage encounter" programs designed to strengthen a partnership, many churches offer "divorce recovery/support" programs.chm2023 said:
The statement compares divorce rates among conservative Chrisitans to "other faith groups". Surely other faith groups are not "un-godly"!!! Beyond that, most people do in fact get married at least once.
Sad that churches don't provide support for divorcing couples though.
Actually, in addition to "marriage encounter" programs designed to strengthen a partnership, many churches offer "divorce recovery/support" programs.
You're right, Judy, many of the new generation of clergy had training regarding marriage and recovery from divorce during seminary.
One of the most interesting conversations in the Gospels is the one between Jesus and a woman who said she had no husband. He indicated she was right, she had had several and the man she was currently living with was not her husband. He didn't condemn her, he just pointed out the reality of her situation and left it to her own conscience...
Pete,Pete Hanlin said:
Actually, in addition to "marriage encounter" programs designed to strengthen a partnership, many churches offer "divorce recovery/support" programs.
You're right, Judy, many of the new generation of clergy had training regarding marriage and recovery from divorce during seminary.
One of the most interesting conversations in the Gospels is the one between Jesus and a woman who said she had no husband. He indicated she was right, she had had several and the man she was currently living with was not her husband. He didn't condemn her, he just pointed out the reality of her situation and left it to her own conscience...
Kinda like taking care of home first :)
I'm against the legalization of gay marriage because of what it envolves both from a religious standpoint as well as the legal position.
igirl said:
"The problem I see with same sex marriages being recognized, is where does it stop? How about marriage to a child? Or multiple marriage partners?"
I'm sorry to say that this is exactly the Pandora's Box that would be opened by the legalization of gay marriage whether intended or not.
Cindy,
You know I love you dear but think about this for just a moment;
"Igirl,
I will fight vehemently against the marriage to children and multiple marriages-GUARANTEED!"
But you would be enabling the very things you abhor by not fighting so vehemently against the very thing that would make them possible. To legally allow gay marriage is to redefine "marriage" to mean "A union between people" (And yes the lines, if this were to become law, would be intentionally blurred sos to be more "inclusive") These would be the results of said action whether intended or not. Unintended consequences is what we would be facing.
I too would like to believe that the union between two same sex consenting adults would have little or no consequences in the present or future, but unfortunately...Like it or not it's the reality of the situation. It's not what it is it's what it will do.
Take care to all,
Darris C.
Cindy:
Un-Godly= Persons who do not believe in God. If one does not believe in God there is little motivation to "sanctify" the union between married couple in the sight of God.
As to same sex marriage, the who thing sounds a little queer to me.
Chip and Darris,
I respect both of you and your opinions tremendously and will fight to the death that you get to express them, but I want to ask a question. I am not directing it at you, but at the topic.
Could it be that people are uncomfortable with same sex marriage because they are uncomfortable with homosexuality or lesbianism? I was very uncomfortable with it and found that one of my best friends was and came to me years later after he "came out" and told me of the agony he went through trying to be what society told him he must be. That he must marry, have children, and live with that wife forever. He is now divorced, estranged from his children by a bitter wife, and ostracized from his parents.
My thing is why can't we accept that people don't love the way we consider "normal"? Why can't we agree to disagree and move on? Why do we have to continue the persecution and the hatred? In the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along"?
I don't want to draw this comparison, but not too long ago we restricted another group and fought a war to abolish it. Do we want a war? Do we want to make people hide and be ashamed of who they are? I, personally, don't want to live in a world like that. I am a church going, card carrying Christian, but really strongly disagree with this stance.
So, Chip and Darris, let me have it!:shiner: I can take it.
~Cindy
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -Catherine Aird-
Things that are different cannot be the same.
No matter whether you try to translate into Orwellian "New Speak" or "Political Correctness" they are still different. No legislation can make them the same.
If you are a Christian and have read your Bible you will find that God himself spoke out against same sex unions and who are we to change that. Remember neither the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court is really supreme.
Chip
If you want to live in a country that is ruled by God (actually man's interpretation of God) move to a theocracy. Like it or not, ours is a secular society, by design, and thank God!
Read your history, our forefathers were keenly aware of the dangers of mixing religion with government. Same sex marriages, unions whatever, will happen. Is this really the only thing we have to worry about?
Chm:
Our forefathers were terribly afraid of mixing government into religion, not the other way around. "Congress shall not establish a state religion" (as prior to the Constitution sever states had). The Constitution does not say that religion shall not influence the government, just the other way around. The thing they were most afraid of (other than God) was the government they created.
Their fear of thier own creation(government) was the reason for the 2nd amendment, that the people might be able to defend themselves from their own government.
Chip
Come on Shanebaum, jump in this is your kind of debate.
Since you asked...
Perhaps Thom will argue for me (it's a little early):
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Nope, no bashing from me and I do hope you didn't take my first post as same. In my post I point out to you the Pandora's box that would be open from a legal standpoint and could just as easily allow those things you would fight tooth and nail against to come to pass. But legally speaking if you allow one you allow them all whether intended or not. Don't open that box and you and many others will not have to suffer the consequences of said action. Everything done in law has as much going against it as it does going for it and regardless of how iron clad something may look there are (unfortunately) no definitives in law which is why obviously guilty people can get off on technicalities and walk free.Cindy Hamlin said:
Chip and Darris,
I respect both of you and your opinions tremendously and will fight to the death that you get to express them, but I want to ask a question. I am not directing it at you, but at the topic.
Could it be that people are uncomfortable with same sex marriage because they are uncomfortable with homosexuality or lesbianism? I was very uncomfortable with it and found that one of my best friends was and came to me years later after he "came out" and told me of the agony he went through trying to be what society told him he must be. That he must marry, have children, and live with that wife forever. He is now divorced, estranged from his children by a bitter wife, and ostracized from his parents.
My thing is why can't we accept that people don't love the way we consider "normal"? Why can't we agree to disagree and move on? Why do we have to continue the persecution and the hatred? In the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along"?
I don't want to draw this comparison, but not too long ago we restricted another group and fought a war to abolish it. Do we want a war? Do we want to make people hide and be ashamed of who they are? I, personally, don't want to live in a world like that. I am a church going, card carrying Christian, but really strongly disagree with this stance.
So, Chip and Darris, let me have it!:shiner: I can take it.
As to my Christian beliefs I'm against it because my beliefs tell me it's wrong and to deny that is to deny my Christian beliefs. Whether anyone thinks that's right or wrong is immaterial to me, but that doesn't mean that I watch for them and want to do them harm or even destroy their happiness. If the couples are happy then let them be happy but if someone comes up to me and says "What do you think about gay marriage?" I will say "I don't agree with it as my Christian beliefs and God's word says it's wrong." and if someone asked me to vote on it I would and will vote against it. What do I think of homosexuality in general? I believe God will judge those who are when the time comes but on this plane of existence I am unwilling to go against the word of God because it just doesn't seem like that would be a smart thing to do ;) God will have enough to say about me without me adding fuel to the fire by denouncing my Christian beliefs.
What others believe is personal to them and whatever they believe is up to them, I just hope for their sake they don't have to answer for it in the after life. I'm not willing to throw caution to the wind but again I don't seek out gay people in order to chastize, cast aspersions, threaten or harm them. If they're gay that's their business but I won't change my beliefs or position in order to be PC. I don't think God is too worried about PC but I do think God would have a problem with me setting my Christian beliefs aside in order to be PC. I'll take God's correctness over political correctness any day of the week.
Just the way I see it, and yes these are my opinions not anyone elses.
Now let's see how many people jump in to tell me how wrong I am :D
Take care and remember your Christian beliefs are not a coat you can put on and take off at your leisure.
Darris C.
Darris,
I appreciate your reply and applaud on the well spoken and thought out response. You truly are a deep thinking, righteous dude! That is what I like about you.
I guess we will agree to disagree on this. I applaud your right to say what you did, but can't agree. Isn't that what makes our country great that we can tolerate other's beliefs while still holding onto our own?
~Cindy
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -Catherine Aird-
One word..................
Caligua:D
Actually I thought Caligula had an incestuous relationship with his siter--which, whatever else it is, is heterosexual.
practicing my catechism
I never thought I'd write these words, but, George Bush may have summed it up best:
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Hail George II, Defender of the Faith.
For a long time, marriage has had two aspects, civil and religious. There are certainly people for whom the religious aspect simply doesn't apply; however, I doubt there are any for whom the civil aspect does not, as it (and it alone) applies when eligibility for spousal benefits, which is almost certainly the benefit gays are seeking in marriage, is the issue.
What I want to know is this: exactly how would allowing gays to marry constitute an assault on other marriages? Is there some effect that would somehow diminish other marriages? Would there be fewer of them? What, exactly, is being "defended"?
Hint: I suspect the answer is twofold, and has really has nothing to do with "defending marriage". First, there is a group of religious fanatics in this country who want to see their religious beliefs turned into the law of the land (after all, "it's a Christian country"). Secondly, there are lots of people who are simply uncomfortable with any action that normatizes homosexuality, which gay marriage would appear to do.
The sad part is that there are many more who fall into the latter category than the former, but their discomfort will serve to facilitate the fanatics accomplishing their goal. Christian States of America, anyone?
There is an almost quaint aspect to this--Americans seem to harbor the notion that the Father knows Best family model is the only model, and one that has stood the test of time. Actually this family structure is relatively new. Up until the first part of the 20th century, the extended family was the norm. Industrialization and the automobile (not the will of GOD) changed all that. We are in the midst of another change--forget homosexual unions, the big change is the emergence of the single person HH as the most common. Again, not GOD's will, simple demographic trends: aging population, women's earning power increasing, incidence of divorce. Now if you want something to worry about, start thinking about the implications of this on child-bearing and child-rearing.
But fear not, our man in the WH has a really fab idea--setting aside $1.5 billion to promote the institution of (hetersexual) marriage. Churches, families, society in general being on the side of marriage apparently not been enough, what we need is a catchy slogan and some infomercials. (Perhaps Bill Bennet could take a hiatus from his position as professianal scold and work his Drug Czar/Just Say No magic on this issue? Be still my heart...)
Don't know how to do the "box" thing so will cut 'n paste:
"Un-Godly= Persons who do not believe in God. If one does not believe in God there is little motivation to "sanctify" the union between married couple in the sight of God."
Chip, I'm an athiest happily about to celebrate 35 years of "union." My decision was not based upon religion nor civil rights but rather on a loving committment to my spouse. We are still best friends.
It's amazing how I accomplished that while having respect for my friends, neighbors and acquaintances. Inbetween, I had a reasonably successful career where I mentored many folks. I, with the loving help of my wife, also raised 2 pretty good kids, both agnostic/athiestic. Our principals and values are exemplary...all without your "only" God. Sorry Chip.
I went to the Web to see how the Bible treated homosexuality. It seems that, WOW, AMAZINGLY, it seems to be a matter a interpretation. Arguments are made on both sides. Hmmm, which do I believe? My way MUST be the RIGHT way.
I also copied the following:
In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden.
Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy.
19:28 prohibits tattoos.
19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed.
11:7 forbids the eating of pigs.
11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud.
11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales.
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream.
So it would seem that the Bible proclaims that a farmer, planting corn and wheat who might have tattoos and who eats bacon and rabbit is living in sin. That eliminates 90% of the Bible-belt right there. Also, any city-folk eating scallops or a Cajun serving crayfish brings it closer to 100%.
Lastly, as a male, I can use duck tape to prevent a woman from screeming and have multiple wifes.
So much for literal interpretation of the Bible. Take what you want and preach against what's left.
As I mentioned in another post, please folks, teach your kids values and hope to hell that they don't listen to your preachings.
sorry to say
it shame on thse that sopport gay marriages,they r worst than animals,coz animals never av honmosexual instinct,we r higher ranked humans!
Although a bit blunt perhaps (not to me though) you bring up a very solid point. I heard something that, while not directly related to homosexual marriages, follows the same basic principle that you've pointed out. It went like this "Humans are the only animals on the planet that blush because humans are the only ones that need to."
Jim G,
"In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden."
Sometimes I think it should be prohibitted to even be around some women during that time of the month :D
"As I mentioned in another post, please folks, teach your kids values and hope to hell that they don't listen to your preachings."
Where do the values you speak of come from? I would have to say that I agree with you in part but agree with you in this way:
Teach your children values and hope to hell they will listen. Preaching comes in many forms and although Chip may be preaching more from a fundamental position, you too are preaching both against fundamentalism and for agnostic/atheism based on value structure, but as I've asked, where do the values one teaches come from? If you believe there is no God then why teach right from wrong, good from evil? Why teach a child that stealing is wrong, that murder is wrong, that adultry is wrong?
Regardless of religious belief it's amazing how many "God fearing" and "God teaching" people there are that don't or won't admit it to others or themselves. If there is no arbitor for right or wrong then everything is relative and everything is okay and values are a moot point.
Oh well. What do I know.
Take care,
Darris C.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks