Gay marriage legal in MD

[Esprix]

and until they were busted for it, the Catholics had no problem letting their gay priests molest little boys in the congregations...


But, that wasnt right either.

the church should not alter the word of God to please the current trend in morality.

do a civil union, and dont try to pretend that it is a marriage under God and you might find a lot less resistance to the whole Idea.

So you're equating a lifelong commitment between two loving, consenting adults to pedophilia? Apples and oranges, my friend.

Regardless of your opinion, there are many churches that have no problem performing unions, and I'm going to be very happy to have mine performed by my minister when the time comes.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

Wow, that I did not know..I stand corrected..though the mention of homosexuality and the actual translation of the words can be debated.

It's very much debated - many biblical scholars believe that the Greek word that has been translated to mean "homosexual" may more accurately mean "male prostitute," which they believe indicates that the bible teaches sexual morality and may not be saying that sex in a relationship between two loving adults is in and of itself wrong.

Then again, this would more accurately belong in the Religion forum.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

I do not hate you, I do not choose to avoid talking to you or shooting pool with you etc... you would be welcome in my home to visit.

I can not however condone a gay relationship, it is just not in me. I do not, or will I ever in my mind recognize any union between same sex couples as a marriage.

Well then I don't believe I'd be coming to your home if you can't respect my relationship with my partner. But thanks for the invite!

I would not freely give my opinion to you on the subject,, unless you asked, then I would be truthful in my thoughts. I hope you would expect the truth from me.

Oh, absolutely, and I wouldn't ask you to change your beliefs, even if I find them disappointing.

I do appreciate your stance on the legal end of things, though, so thanks.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

Saying “marriage” is not a religious term – is an opinion – not fact. Americans who ARE religious would argue that “marriage” is an institution of the church – not government. The Government recognizes marriage for taxation/census purposes – that is the only reason (I think)

Actually, the General Accounting Office listed over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that were directly tied to the state of being married, so it's not just about taxes.

And I believe what Vrai is saying is that since, according to the government, having a church wedding is NOT required in order to be married, the term "marriage" isn't SOLELY a religious term (although most folks, as you say, view it that way); TECHNICALLY it's just a word both the government and religions use to identify the same thing.

Esprix

 

[onebdzee]

I can not however condone a gay relationship, it is just not in me. I do not, or will I ever in my mind recognize any union between same sex couples as a marriage.

If it were your child that were gay


....would you condone it then?

 

[ajhkmr97]

Actually, the General Accounting Office listed over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that were directly tied to the state of being married, so it's not just about taxes.

And I believe what Vrai is saying is that since, according to the government, having a church wedding is NOT required in order to be married, the term "marriage" isn't SOLELY a religious term (although most folks, as you say, view it that way); TECHNICALLY it's just a word both the government and religions use to identify the same thing.

Esprix

Thanks for that info - I didnt know that.

I agree with you and VRAI in that "both the government and religions use to identify the same thing." My debate is ending that practice. Create "civil unions"! Churches will have one term for unionizing and the government will have another. This way - all states have to accept "civil unions" (I think) where as now - too many hung up on the idea that "marriage" is a church founded institution.

 

[Esprix]

I agree with you and VRAI in that "both the government and religions use to identify the same thing." My debate is ending that practice. Create "civil unions"! Churches will have one term for unionizing and the government will have another. This way - all states have to accept "civil unions" (I think) where as now - too many hung up on the idea that "marriage" is a church founded institution.

From a popular culture point of view, you're right, it would probably work better. From a technically legal point of view, they don't have to, since as far as the government is concerned a church isn't required for a marriage.

Ultimately it will probably come down to the legal definition, since "seperate but equal" is unconstitutional, and, as I said before, I predict that's how it's going to pan out in the final wash.

Esprix

 

[bcp]

actually, since marriage was here before the U.S government, this is clearly a case of the government crossing the line of church and state.

I think that the ACLU should back the government out of the church, drop the benifits of tax on married couples unless they file for the civil union also.

This should solve the issue completely.

but then I suppose the government would be giving up some of that control over the people that its not supposed to have in the first place.

 

[ajhkmr97]

From a popular culture point of view, you're right, it would probably work better. From a technically legal point of view, they don't have to, since as far as the government is concerned a church isn't required for a marriage.

Ultimately it will probably come down to the legal definition, since "seperate but equal" is unconstitutional, and, as I said before, I predict that's how it's going to pan out in the final wash.

Esprix

I couldnt agree more! I just thought that for simplisticy sakes - make two things that mean that same (like a GED is same as HS diploma) With so many upset with the definition of "marriage" - creating a seperate term (civil union) - there will be little to debate. (I dont think)

 

[ajhkmr97]

actually, since marriage was here before the U.S government, this is clearly a case of the government crossing the line of church and state.

I think that the ACLU should back the government out of the church, drop the benifits of tax on married couples unless they file for the civil union also.

This should solve the issue completely.

but then I suppose the government would be giving up some of that control over the people that its not supposed to have in the first place.

I agree to a point but homosexuals may still desire to have a public title that identifyed the status of the mutual union they had with their partner.

 

[vraiblonde]

I agree to a point but homosexuals may still desire to have a public title that identifyed the status of the mutual union they had with their partner.

Why not let everyone else have "marriage" and Christians can change their designation to "covenant"? In my mind, it more suits the Christian marriage anyway - you are making a binding promise before God.

 

[vraiblonde]

(like a GED is same as HS diploma)

GED is not the same thing as a high school diploma. Many employers require a diploma and will not accept a GED - that's why a lot of people who got their GED go back and finish high school for that diploma.

 

[tomchamp]

GED is not the same thing as a high school diploma. Many employers require a diploma and will not accept a GED - that's why a lot of people who got their GED go back and finish high school for that diploma.

How do they do that? I have mine (HSD), but do they go back to school at like 35 years old?

 

[Pete]

I am sure that it has not escaped all of you debating that the power to "marry" people is delegated to the official performing the ceremony by the government. In the early days it was delegated from the King, or appropriate potentate. I always liked the word "potentate"

Thus government has not encroached on marriage it had commingled with it since early days.

But as Mr. Gude so eloquently pointed out it is a civil union, a contract, thus falls under the laws and jurisdiction of the government. If marriage were viewed as simply a church thing to dissolve a marriage would a) Be impossible IAW the Bible ( Something I for one, and DJ, Larry, RR, Pixie, and thousands of other people who are happily divorced, am damn happy is not the case. -or- b.) You would get divorced by a priest, reverend or whoever waving their hands over your head and dividing stuff however THEY saw fit without legal jurisdiction from the Gov.

In our Republic our elected officials (the judiciary is not elected) have not seen the need to legitimize something that is NOT the will of the people. One day perhaps the House and the Senate will all gather on the Mall and in a moment of divine enlightenment dance about in joyous celebration and make it legal. Until that time I guess you will have to lump it.

Like it or not there are many people who just think that homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and just plain bad. Their opinion counts just as much and is just as much correct as those homosexuals who want their lifestyle legitimized by the government.

 

[bcp]

Why not let everyone else have "marriage" and Christians can change their designation to "covenant"? In my mind, it more suits the Christian marriage anyway - you are making a binding promise before God.

why not just let the christians keep the marriage title since it was first a christian thing, and just let everyone else refer to their union as a domestic corporation. since, that is what it is in the eyes of the government.

I could then refer to my wife as my wife
and other could refer to their partner as their corporate partner in the
Smith/Tyler Corp.

or whatever the last names might be.

 

[vraiblonde]

How do they do that? I have mine (HSD), but do they go back to school at like 35 years old?

Most community colleges offer adult high school diploma classes. You take classes and earn your credits just like you would at a regular high school.

 

[vraiblonde]

I could then refer to my wife as my wife

And what would the penalty be if you merely have a civil union and you refer to your partner as a "wife" or "husband" and tell people you are "married"?

 

[Tonio]

Like it or not there are many people who just think that homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and just plain bad. Their opinion counts just as much and is just as much correct as those homosexuals who want their lifestyle legitimized by the government.

I don't know what causes homosexuality, but I believe that people can't choose who they find sexually and romantically attractive.

But I agree completely that all of us are entitled to our own beliefs about homosexuality. I don't demand that people who oppose homosexuality change their personal beliefs, just like I don't demand that gay men at least try to find something attractive about breasts.

What I don't understand is, why do some people have a problem with OTHERS being gay? Shouldn't people who oppose homosexuality be satisfied with following their own moral code? What difference should it make to me if other people are gay? It's not like gays are threatening me with eternal damnation if I don't watch Bravo or Logo. If gays got the legal right to marry or enter into civil unions, that wouldn't make a difference in my daily life.

 

[bcp]

should gays be allowed in the restrooms with others of the same sex?
how about the shower at school?
its obvious that we cant put a gay guy in the shower with the girls, every guy in school would suddenly be gay.

If we have to keep men and women seperated in this instance, why do we not need to keep the gays separated from who they might find sexually attractive?

Gays really dont fit into the world as we see it, now do they?

and yes, if they are born that way (something I doubt in most cases) then they are living with a mental illness. So, why dont we try to treat them?

 

[river rat]

I don't know what causes homosexuality, but I believe that people can't choose who they find sexually and romantically attractive.

But I agree completely that all of us are entitled to our own beliefs about homosexuality. I don't demand that people who oppose homosexuality change their personal beliefs, just like I don't demand that gay men at least try to find something attractive about breasts.

What I don't understand is, why do some people have a problem with OTHERS being gay? Shouldn't people who oppose homosexuality be satisfied with following their own moral code? What difference should it make to me if other people are gay? It's not like gays are threatening me with eternal damnation if I don't watch Bravo or Logo. If gays got the legal right to marry or enter into civil unions, that wouldn't make a difference in my daily life.

Because, it is such a fun topic. no grey, just black or white....you oppose or you don't. Unlike the aborotion topic, there could be all kinds of situations where an abortion is acceptable. ie, rape, health...whatever, NOT trying to get off topic.
The topic is clear and a good way to get others juiced up by throwing some religion in there...or taxes...or inheritance... or child rearing of gay couples.
I don't really think any one of us really gives rat's azz what happens to the institution of marriage. Look at our society, most, NOT ALL, throw marriage around these days, like it is a not a sacred institution.
Drive-in marriages prove that.
If gay marriage is legalized, then gay couples just might appreciate and improve on the institution of marriage for the rest of us.
Think about it....finally getting the right to do something that most everyone else takes for granted. Am I really talking about the people of the United States of America