Gay Rights

[MajMike]

Civil Unions vs Gay Marriage - A Compromise

This is an issue which has gotten lots of press and attention from our lawmakers recently, one side sees it as a basic American right, the other as an attack on the institution of marriage. Is there middle ground? How do we address this problem and ensure all citizen's rights are equal under the Constitution? Do we really want to amend the Constitution to specify a non-right to a minority in this nation? And if we set this precedent . . . . what's next?

I think a huge part of the current problem is nomenclature, for example what is marriage? Is it a religious ceremony conducted in a church and blessed of God? Or is it the civil recognition of a union between two people? For many it is both, a church ceremony after obtaining a license from the local government to marry. Which of these are we talking about when we say gay marriage?

Let me now say this, I am a Christian, and believe homosexuality is a sin. I do not want my church to sanctify a union between two members of the same sex. However, if we truly believe in the separation of church and state, I feel we must allow civil unions for gay couples. To do otherwise is to deny them the right guaranteed by our founding principles, the right to the pursuit of happiness. Government recognition of civil unions for gay couples provides them the same legal status as a couple married in church, thereby ensuring their equal rights.

Marriage is a different subject, as I have said I do not want my church to sanctify gay marriage, and I do not want any church to be coerced into doing something against their beliefs. That said, IF a church feels comfortable in presiding over gay marriages then to not allow them to do so would be government interference in their religious freedom. Do we want to set that precedent?

I think the time has come for all peoples to do what we can to unite our nation rather than making laws to divide us. And anytime our leadership starts talking about a Constitutional amendment I get very nervous, sort of like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. The compromises I have set forth above allow churches who disapprove of gay marriage to not allow it, each church is allowed to worship and act as they see fit, as our Constitution intended. The government extends the rights offered to the majority of Americans to all, permitting civil unions for gay couples guaranteeing their right to the pursuit of happiness, something we all should hold dear.

We as Americans have so much work to do to bring our nation together, and so many issues which, to date, have no good answers. Herein is an answer to one problem. It requires some compromise from those who have strict beliefs, which includes myself, but it is a compromise whose time has come. Let us move on to address the other problems we have in our nation.

[psteve]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA. Do you think you can help me doctor?

Yes.
Bend over.

[picilo]

Civil Unions vs Gay Marriage - A Compromise

This is an issue which has gotten lots of press and attention from our lawmakers recently, one side sees it as a basic American right, the other as an attack on the institution of marriage. Is there middle ground? How do we address this problem and ensure all citizen's rights are equal under the Constitution? Do we really want to amend the Constitution to specify a non-right to a minority in this nation? And if we set this precedent . . . . what's next?

I think a huge part of the current problem is nomenclature, for example what is marriage? Is it a religious ceremony conducted in a church and blessed of God? Or is it the civil recognition of a union between two people? For many it is both, a church ceremony after obtaining a license from the local government to marry. Which of these are we talking about when we say gay marriage?

Let me now say this, I am a Christian, and believe homosexuality is a sin. I do not want my church to sanctify a union between two members of the same sex. However, if we truly believe in the separation of church and state, I feel we must allow civil unions for gay couples. To do otherwise is to deny them the right guaranteed by our founding principles, the right to the pursuit of happiness. Government recognition of civil unions for gay couples provides them the same legal status as a couple married in church, thereby ensuring their equal rights.

Marriage is a different subject, as I have said I do not want my church to sanctify gay marriage, and I do not want any church to be coerced into doing something against their beliefs. That said, IF a church feels comfortable in presiding over gay marriages then to not allow them to do so would be government interference in their religious freedom. Do we want to set that precedent?

I think the time has come for all peoples to do what we can to unite our nation rather than making laws to divide us. And anytime our leadership starts talking about a Constitutional amendment I get very nervous, sort of like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. The compromises I have set forth above allow churches who disapprove of gay marriage to not allow it, each church is allowed to worship and act as they see fit, as our Constitution intended. The government extends the rights offered to the majority of Americans to all, permitting civil unions for gay couples guaranteeing their right to the pursuit of happiness, something we all should hold dear.

We as Americans have so much work to do to bring our nation together, and so many issues which, to date, have no good answers. Herein is an answer to one problem. It requires some compromise from those who have strict beliefs, which includes myself, but it is a compromise whose time has come. Let us move on to address the other problems we have in our nation.

I would agree to something like this. I feel the same and I dont advocate it, at least not in my church. But if a church decides they want to perform the service,... then I guess that would be a compromise I would have to accept. Because like you said, if the church did do that, and the state came in and stopped them, then the state would be interfering with our religious rights.



(Yes. Bend over.) written by psteve

Any way I can see that some of the smaller minds have picked me to pick on since my opinion obviously goes against there own day to day lives. If you like it in the but, dude thats fine with me. Let that be known. But I will never agree that it is right or even morally ok for two people of the same gender to legally get married and then to unite under god as a married couple. That contradicts the point of marriage.

[Canuckofithaca]

Shut up dude, your obviously like 15 with very little knowledge of the world around you, and your just repeating things you have heard your parents say. And the passages in the Bible that state that homosexuality is a sin were added in the 16th century.

[Canuckofithaca]

and what is the point of marriage? according to a definition i found, Marriage is an interpersonal relationship, usually intimate and created as a contract. Marriage is not a exclusivly religious ceremony anymore, many atheists get married. Logic would say that some marriages have absolutley nothing to do with religion, only love. And if two people love each other and wish to be married, it shouldn't be up to the church to decide whether they can marry or not.

[Nation_1ne]

Being homosexual is a natural thing Picilo. As apes we would have most likely engaged in homosexual acts just as other animals do in the wonderful kingdom of...well, animals. Having sex with another species of animal is not natural due to it not being a normal instinct throughout out all species. In fact its more of a common occurrence between people who have had issues or problems as children and it may have affect their growing up.

I can understand why religious people wouldn't want Gay's getting married since marriage is historically a religious thing right? However, if Gay people are getting married in the name of love, then I believe they should be able to do it. Just not in the name of a god who doesn't believe homosexuality is right. I follow no religion, nor am I a homophobe. I'm all for Gay people being able to live their lives normally since they are normal. I'm just saying you can't expect gay people to be allowed to get religiously married if the religion is against homosexuals.

[psteve]

If you like it in the but, dude thats fine with me. Let that be known.

Actually, I wanted you to bend over so I could send the shit you're spewing back where it belongs. :toilet_claw:
You're the one who immediately assumed butt sex.
Are you SURE you're not gay?

[Canuckofithaca]

zing

[picilo]

Shut up dude, your obviously like 15 with very little knowledge of the world around you, and your just repeating things you have heard your parents say. And the passages in the Bible that state that homosexuality is a sin were added in the 16th century.

Actually Im not even close to 15, and im NOT just repeating what i hear or what the bible says. I have read the bible, and I feel it is a good moral book. But I dont agree the even half of what it says is factual. I do believe in god, but not in the traditional Christian since. Im more scientific about it. Which goes hand and hand with my believes on gays. honestly, do you know why were attracted to each other. Male to female? Pheromones play a large role in who you want to mate with. The stronger the immune system is of the male, the more the female will want to reproduce with him instinctualy. This is due to our NATURAL reproductive system that delegates the hormonal rush in our bodies and brain that drive us to want sexual intercourse. Not to say that it is the one deciding factor on who you sleep with, but it plays a big part of the female attraction. Sex was and is for reproduction. Yes we do it for fun and our own sexual stimulation, but that does not mean sticking it in any thing that feels good just because you like the way it feels is justifiable.


So here is a question for you. If a person finds him self naturally (from birth, no choices) attracted to a chicken, should he be allowed to be with it legally. And if not then why? And after that, explain to me how your answer is any different for two gays getting married.

And as for saying we used to be apes. I was never a ape, nor were you. Do you not under stand how evolution works? Its the theory that a species has to change in order to continue living in a changing environment. If there was some cataclysmic event that made us evolve from apes, then there would be no more apes around. I believe we were and are still very similar, but we are not apes, nor were we ever an ape. Again, if this was the case why is there still apes roaming the earth. Did we consciously evolve, or ohh i know... only a certain amount of apes decided to evolve for the hell of it and the rest moved to another continent and stayed u evolved because there environment was good enough in there new home. HAHAHAHA. It does not work like that, either they evolved into humans and apes are a thing of the past, or that theory is complete BS. That argument about apes is split 50/50 among scientific researchers. And you obviously agree with the other half.

[king of the world]

what i dont understand is why they allow gays to just about everything but when it comes to mariage its not ok. if they are allowed to have boyfriends and relationships then shouldnt they be allowed to marry??????