I agree....that’s why I think sex education is so important. I taught sex ed in middle school..and it was shocking what they didn’t know!
As long as the same-sex marriage is non-religious (i.e. performed by a justice of the peace at city hall), yes. It is a civil right. On the other hand if you are talking about a same-sex marriage in a house of worship, that's a whole different matter. Churches and temples are seen as private organizations. This is a privilege not a civil right and should be left up to the governing body of the church or temple.
You mean my post in reply to you? Because that's the post that she quoted without actually giving a reply.
Are you saying that a church can't choose to hold gay marriages? I doubt you are. IMO, you are passing along a fear-mongering meme that the First Amendment will be violated by forcing churches to hold gay marriages. That's bullshit. All we have to do is support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Who is ****ing whom and what consenting adults do is their business, not yours and certainly not the US government's.
There are times when my phone is insufficient to my posting goals, particularly when the posts get longer. I haven't had a chance to to get to my laptop.
Ah yes of course. The way that you quote posts and reply section by section just like me. Yes it is difficult to do this on a phone. You should do what I do and keep the notification flag alive until you get to a PC. That way you won't miss anything.
The US is a secular state with a wall of separation between church and state. The church will not interfere in the affairs of the state while the state will not interfere in the affairs of the church. Same-sex marriage policies insofar as churches are concerned aren't regulated by federal government or state governments (nor should they).They are regulated by the bylaws governing that individual church or religious body. Some permit same-sex marriage others do not. That meme is correct. If a particular church does not perform gay marriages, you can always to another church because they are private organizations. Their autonomy only exists within that particular church or denomination. Now if on the other hand, that ban was enforced by the state that's another matter. When the government says no, it's no for everybody and yes that would be a civil rights violation.
You know the one thing I really hate about this forum is that the response is down at the bottom instead of right under the post, for quick easy reference. I sometimes need to look back at what I said that someone is responding to. Wait a minute! Think about that logic. The Bible doesn't support eating red meat, even though it doesn't denounce it. So Christians have no authority to adhere to the eating of red meat, and can't be taken seriously about the eating of red meat? That makes no sense. Here is every religious text broiled down to its most basic: So something doesn't have to be mandated to be allowed within a religion. Interpretation of the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, is a multifaceted thing. It is why there are so many denominations for them all. Hell look at all the various interpretations of the Koran between the extremist and the moderate Muslims. Where and how they justify the ability to perform or have same sex marriages in among them. And quite frankly I don't care where they get it from. It doesn't change the fact that such is part of their religion. I know within my solitary practice (and by solitary, I mean that I am not a member of any specific denomination, or individual church) I see the hand of man throughout God's work. It is the Holy Spirit that guides me to what is and isn't supposed to be. For example, in the area of marriage, setting same sex marriages aside. Paul states that in his opinion that it is best to not be married at all. He does note that this is his opinion only. He goes on to say that marriage is the way to go if you are going to be having sex with another. He then futher goes on to point out that if one is to be a leader in the church (I think "bishop" is the most used when translated, but I am sure I have seen "elder" or similar before), then one should marry only once. Now a lot of modern Christians want to take this as the call to monogamy. However, it seems to me that monogamy is only required for those who are leaders, not general followers. Thus polygamy is not a prohibited state. Of why same sex marriage is acceptable within their religion. United Methodist. Caucasian, although there are hints of others in our lineage, but I haven't bothered to check. If it isn't medically relevant, I could care less about the race of my ancestors.
What are asking exactly? I note that you quoted my post but said nothing in reply, in this post of yours: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-gay-marriage.512210/page-41#post-1069543337
I should have instead said that if a religion doesn't have an official STAND on marriage in their text, but they marry people under the religion anyway, then they can't be taken seriously. Oh sure, but as far as I'm aware, no Christian authority can point to anywhere in the Bible to support same sex marriage. That is my point. The Bible's crystal clear position on marriage being between a man and a woman has to be accepted by anyone who calls themselves a Christian, otherwise they are just not living in a Christian reality. Do you think that Paul's writings are the only place that supports monogamy? Churches that say that the Bible supports their position on same sex marriage? I meant the race of the person who people in the church were being racist towards.
When one of my friends decides to have a gay wedding I shall be openly supportive of gay marriage. Until then, mildly disapproving.
It's my opinion that whoever wants to marry the person of their choice and have chosen someone to be a partner for life, then there's no reason to try to prevent that. The only obstacle are people's religious beliefs which should be kept out of politics altogether. (separation of church and state, remember?) There's many, many reasons why a same-sex couple wishes to be legally joined in marriage which many people choose not to consider. First and foremost, it's discriminating to dictate to two people whether they can or cannot marry. Same-sex couples have a very high marriage longevity rate compared to opposite sex marriages and yet they don't have the same legal rights. Just a few benefits that are only available to married couples include hospital visitation during an illness, the option of filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, and bereavement leave and inheritance rights if a partner dies. Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all and that ruling was not gender specific.
So does a belief in the sixth, eighth and ninth commandments count as religious? The problem being...? And we should find that impressive because...? Sure it is. It is not, however, a right that homosexuals have any interest in.
I am all for it. Inheritance tax aside, if a child is going to stay with a single (for whatever reason; never married, divorced, widowed, etc) parent and make a household together, then there is no reason to deny them the same legal protections and benefits as non related couples. Basically, ANY two consenting adults. The key thing to remember about legal marriage is that there is no requirement for sex, so the argument about incest (actual sexual relationship, not marriage per the legal definitions in some states) is a red herring and disingenuous.
I am too. Unfortunately gay marriage is only for gay people. It's not an equal rights issue at all. It is a specialist rights issue. If you are gay you get more rights.
You incorrectly assume that all people follow a religion that has 10 commandments. It's more logical and fair to assume that all humans have just one commandment, 'do unto others as others would do unto you'. Your other replies have no relativity or substance so I won't respond to those.
Wrong. Under the law, a straight man can marry a straight man - or a gay man - or a straight woman can marry a gay woman. The only limitations are the same age and family relationship that existed before the law. No special rights under this law. Your post is a fail.
Can I marry my mum or dad? Can two sisters marry or two brothers. Why is it the law was changed to allow gay people to marry but not the rest of us? Because gay people get special rights. Laws get changed for them but not me.
