May 11, 2012 -- 9:59AM, Mostyn32 wrote:

EDW, I don't know where you get the idea that all those who support SSM are anti-Christ and out to destroy Christianity.

I'm a committed Christian of the Anglican/Episcopalian persuasion. I'm heterosexual, and I was married - to a man I dearly loved - for 46 years. I am the mother of two sons, both of whom are hetero but it would not have broken my heart if one or both of them had been gay.

I am also a member of Integrity, an Anglican group that seeks full equality for LGBT in the Anglican Church, and I proudly wear both a rainbow bracelet and a button with the inscription 'Straight but not Narrow' (even though I never refer to myself as straight since that implies that LGBT are bent or crooked!) 

Don't you think it's time you declared the real reason for your opposition to SSM. It has nothing to do with the church and everything to do with civil rights, and, in your case, I'm pretty sure it has to do with the well-known Ick factor?

Mostyn,

Jesus himself taught that the only way to heaven was straight and narrow.(Matthew 7:13,14) To be saved, you gotta be straight and narrow about it.

May 11, 2012 -- 12:20PM, christzen wrote:

May 11, 2012 -- 11:52AM, Bodean wrote:

Come to think of it .. .why are Gays seeking "marriage", when most of them are Liberal, and Liberals, by far prefer not to marry.  Strange don't you think??

Not strange at all.Very simple.Marriage,civil union,whatever term you wish to use to convey legal spousal rights to gays,gives them the same rights to have spouses on ins,get retirements benefits,get spousal SS,get protection from discrimination in housing,the right to adopt kids,etc,etc.I'm sure I'm  leaving out a few legal issues,but the point is the legality of the union that conveys the same civil and legal rights to gay partners that husbands and wives enjoy today.

Not having to testify in court against your spouse,the right to make mediacl decisions for an incapacitated spouse also come to mind.I am sure there are even more I haven't mentioned.

And let us not forget that marriage (and properly constructed civil unions) confer responsabilities in addition to rights.

Responsabilities like monogamy, alimony and child support in the event of failure, community property...all the things that obligate married people now.

I know they don't show up in the "Gay Blade" chick tract some people substitute for reality, but they are very much a feature of SSM.

May 11, 2012 -- 12:20PM, christzen wrote:

Marriage,civil union,whatever term you wish to use to convey legal spousal rights to gays,gives them the same rights to have spouses on ins,get retirements benefits,get spousal SS,get protection from discrimination in housing,the right to adopt kids,etc,etc.

So .. why is it so important to call it "marriage"??

IF you've been listening, just about everyone supports "legal spousal rights" to gays.

As opposed to going for redifining marriage ... how bout going for redifining Civil Union?

As it stands, this whole exercise in Gay Marriage is a fruitless endeavor from one aspect, but a very fruitfull endeavor from another.  From the aspect of elevating SS relations to that of OSM, it is a gross failure.  Unlike OSM, states are not obligated under law to recognize SSM or Civil Unions, or anything else passed for SS couples.  The DOMA prevents the Federal Government from making federal law on SS unions.  In all of this, what the "Rejection" votes are really about, is saying that a State will not recognize a SSM from another State, as they do for OSM.

On the other hand, the positive effect of the Gay Marriage thing for Gay People, is that having this issue in the news, and having TV shows perpetually include SS couples in the scripts, etc, has had the effect of indoctrinating younger people.  As a consequence, you find more acceptance of SSM in younger people than you do in older people.  As noted in one of the articles, the NC speaker expects the Vote to be overturned in about 20 years ... after all the old people die off.

May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:

So .. why is it so important to call it "marriage"??

Because, that IS what it is and that IS what they want. Not to mention it automatically gives them the same rights and privileges as well as the same responsibilities and commitment as you and I without having to write new laws or change the system at whatever costs that would entail.

I’m an Atheist who doesn’t believe in any of your gods or religions and I am married just like you are. Why am I allowed to and they aren’t? Because of the ingrained prejudices that your religion comes with, which is all anyone has proven so far is the real reason behind the discrimination.

And I would imagine that some are actually Christian gays that would also like to consider themselves as married within their religion. Like it or not, there are Christian churches that HAVE and WILL marry gays. I'm sure you don't look at them as REAL...but they are just as REAL as the church you belong to...like it or not.

And because it really is the RIGHT thing to do and the easiest way to extend the same rights and privileges the rest of us have.

May 11, 2012 -- 2:36PM, Druac wrote:

May 11, 2012 -- 1:57PM, Bodean wrote:

So .. why is it so important to call it "marriage"??

Because, that IS what it is and that IS what they want.

And where does it end Druac.  A Pedophile WANTS to marry 5 year olds.  There are people who WANT to marry their Goat.  There are people who WANT to have more than one wife.

This is exactly what is meant by "moral relativism".  While screwing a goat is not something you may aprove of, hey .. they seem to think it is ok.  While society has decided it is not right for Adults to have sex with Kids ... hey .. they don't seem to have a problem with it ... it's what they "WANT".

HOWEVER ... regardless of their WANT .. .Society itself decides what it recognizes. That is the real crux of this issue .. Gays WANT society as a whole to accept them, embrace them, consider them to be just like John and Jane Doe.  It's not enough to be tolerated, to be allowed to live without being pusecuted.  Nope ...  They WANT the whole world to view their "marriage" in the same light as it views Traditional Marriage. 

Well ... this is where a war of wants comes to a clash.  They can WANT all they WANT .... but Society is in control of what it WANTS to do.

OH ... and since we are talking about "moral relativism" ... there is no "right thing to do".  It's relative.