http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040224/D80TNENO0.html
discuss...

We've been through the wringer over the gay marriage thing already. I suspect the last thing most of us want to do is revisit that one.

For good or bad, Bush has taken a side.

Check out the Politics forum (who'da thunk it?). Last post was mine on December 2nd or 4th or some such. I for one am not going to get into that again. (Famous last words?)

I can remember when GAY meant you were happy

And a dike was story about a dutch boy...

Anybody who has been a member of this board, knows my position on gay rights. So I won't state the obvious. However, one thing I would like to point out is that adding an ammendment to the constitution to TAKE AWAY rights, does not seem right. For all of the members who want to spout off about equal rights, and then turn around and make an exception for gay marriage, is frankly, a hypocrite.

I will never understand why two gay people getting married somehow THREATENS someone else's sanctity of marriage, but that's just me. Personally, if two other people you don't know get married, and it somehow affects your marriage, I think you need to take that up with a marriage counselor. Why this country always wants to butt into people's personal business is beyond me - especially something that is based on love. This country has such a long way to go, it is really disheartening.

You said it! Agreed.


Tx you must be old. I've never heard of that before.

*sigh*

Not everyone sees it as an equal rights issue. IMO, it's not taking away rights, it's making sure that individual states don't go off in left field and grant special privileges on the basis of sexuality. But we went through all of that before.

One thing I will say that doesn't so much argue about the propriety of same-sex marriage. Some Christians have taken the view what governmental officials and agencies refer to as "marriage" has nothing to do with the union of man and woman given the same name in the Bible. The basic idea is that civil marriage is nothing but a government designation of a class to which the government wishes to grant special privileges, having nothing to do with the Holy estate that God established by the creation of Adam and Eve. From that viewpoint, one is freed from worry about what the rest of society want to do with the governments so-called "marriage".

It's not "special privileges", when you don't have the same privilege as everyone else does, who is straight. It would be called EQUAL privileges. Why should marriage be a privilege for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals?

It's nobody's business what two grown PEOPLE want to do with THEIR relationship!I've said it before and I'll say it again...Get your *amn nose out of MY business and bedroom! Nuff said.

p.s. G.W.- who are YOU to take certain AMERICAN'S rights AWAY?? That goes against everything our nation stands for college boy.

Where is the line drawn then? Can a man (or woman) marry two women, or three, or four, or their pet dog. There are relationships like these out there and laws on the books against them. Do you also agree these instances should be allowed to marry?

I haven't decide which side of the line I'm falling on yet. Both have good points in my book.

Mutipules havn't been included as far as I know,it's just the "gay" or "same sex" that are going to be stripped of their right.How and when did this mutipules thing get dragged into it?!
Also if these people are getting a civil service then what business is it of the "church"?? None of the ones out in Cal. have been married in the "church".I can't beleive so many people have nothing better to do in their lives than to stick their noses into other people's business.Amazing! There's so much more suffering and hunger and plague,etc. to be worrying about instead of this.

My biggest beef with this is that it is against the law in California to wed a same sex couple, yet, government officials are flagrantly thumbing their noses at the law and marrying people. The proper way to fight a law that is perceived as unjust is not just to keep breaking it(by gov. employees at that!), but to challenge it through the court system.

As for my mulitple partners comment, I was merely trying to give a "slippery slope" example of where it could head.

I'm just so sick of hearing about it, I wish maybe our politicians instead of const amendment that they try to fix our major problems like healthcare, social-security, education, joblessness etc... Although, as I stated before I don't really care one way or another on gay marriage, but if it's against the law in California the mayor of San Fransisco should be arrested for breaking the law.

Hopefully the debate over a constitutional amendment won't distract them from the other issues, I agree. I think each side of the issue believes that the majority of Americans are on their side, so who really knows? A constitutional amendment, be it to ban or to sanction same-sex marriage, isn't likely to pass in my opinion.

I'm doing my best not to continue the debate that we all got into last time over this. Nobody really convinced anyone else to change their minds, and it was awfully draining, mentally and emotionally.

I just hope Bush stands his ground on this one...the gays might have WMD

Greedy!



Are not!

Am too!

This is it...I'm gonna end it today...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable
:barf:

I'm thinking the DNR needs to test Rosie for CWD...

I also see it as an issue of equal privileges, not special privileges. If the Presidant is concerned about the state of marriage, he should work on preserving the sanctity of heterosesxual marriages first!

Maybe chronic over eating but not chronic wasting

Did you see MD law makers are already busy with 2 new bills outlawing same sex marriage. What ever happened to be fruitful and multiply?

Gman: I can see how same-sex marriages can be "fruitful" , but how can they "multiply"? (multiply as defined as producing progeny)

Oh would ya'll just share in the love already!? I'll never understand why people feel so threatened by homosexual marriage. "Protect the sanctity of marriage"...that's what I keep hearing, but how is any other marriage, homosexual or not, going to affect your personal marriage? It has no bearing on the sanctity of your marriage. Your personal marriage and bond and union with your special person, is not affected by someone elses marriage, bond, union. Do you think a homosexual marriage will somehow negate your marriage? Be fruitful and multiply. Of course this isn't possible literaly, at least not without the outside aid of a sperm donor or surrogate mother, but homosexual couples can multiply in that they can create a family just like everyone else. Then you have the argument that, well this has been the way it is since for the last billion or so centuries. Well who cares? A lot of things have been around that long that don't make sense or may be harmful. Just because something has been around forever doesn't automatically dub it sane, correct, the best option.


Ergh! This topic is so frustrating.

Oh heck!

It's all VERY simple.

God said it - that settles it. I believe it.

And yes the punctuation I used above is correct.

I've been through all of the reasoning behind the opposition to homosexual marriage that doesn't depend upon God's pronouncements. But in the end, the only thing that really matters to me is what God has said about it.

P.S. - I have no fear whatsoever of homosexuals, homosexuality, nor homosexual marriage. I simply agree with God that the behavior is an abomination.

Sorry to hear that my opinion and God's standards are causing so much frustration. Neither of them are going to change anytime soon.

fix it for ya! I was looking out for the people who might take offense to your God.

Anyways I'm against it also.My reason is simple it's not natural.Takes male and female to keep things going.

BMIC I do have a question for you.Why does the Bible stop?It's Gods word why does God not have anymore words?

Yes, because believing 100% in a piece of literature written over 3000 years ago, which has been translated off of walls in several different languages, should be taken with every ounce of seriousness. Do you believe everything you read off the internet as well? LOL! How about weekly world news? Do you subscribe to that?

I'm not saying that the bible is completely fiction, because I don't believe that. However, to say that God does not accept a certain group of people soley because of the person they fall in love with (not by choice, mind you), is something I can't believe. I don't think God would put homosexuals on this earth just to torture them with a life they're not supposed to lead.

The basis of my belief in God is the only undeniable and incontrovertible one: personal encounter and relationship. I have met God. No I haven't looked on His face. But I have seen Him act, often at my request, doing things that simply would never have happened had He not acted. I see Him act at least once a week, as a matter of fact. You really just have to open your eyes - the evidence is all around you.

Actually there is no other "piece of literature" in existence today that has been so faithfully and unwaveringly preserved as the Bible. To the extent that the lack of variation is usually looked to as evidence that it is inspired by God, and not just a piece of human literature. There simply is no other work that has been passed down from antiquity with so little change. We're talking only a few small words, a few letters of which are shaped nearly identically to those of each other - and none of which change the meaning of the passages of which they are a part.

Now from time to time groups of people have taken the faithfully-preserved original-language manuscripts and come up with their own paraphrases and modern (at the time) translations of them, and some of those versions are more faithful to the original-language texts than others. But those variations are easily understood by the most amateur biblical scholar (like me). For example the King James version is obviously dramatically different fom the New American Standard, but the differences are almost exclusively idiomatic.

Sadly for those who choose to ignore it, the Bible's truthfulness does not depend upon anyone believing it. God's existence likewise doesn't depend upon anyone's belief in Him. By way of analogy, you can refuse to believe that the sky is blue, but it's not going to change color as a result.

P.S. - The Canon of scripture is closed simply because there's nothing more that needs saying. Lots more has been written, but it's all so obviously NOT inspired of God because it clearly contradicts the rest of Scripture in one respect or another.

BUT THIS IS GETTING OFF TOPIC. My statement was simply made to point out the futility of further attacks on my position. It's fixed and unchanging, because it's based upon He who is fixed and unchanging.

Just so were all clear GMAN (goverment male employee) not gay!!!
I will not judge Homosexuality it's not my job. The God I worship will do that and that word is clear(to me anyway ) . My plate is full just taking care of my own life. To anwser your question they can't that was my point.

I have learned about God from my youthful church-going days, various forums, letters to the editor, Mail Call and person to person discussion. The most common factor of these sourses is that God made us all. He has a plan for all of us...those alive now, those to be born to this earth, and those who have phsically died. This includes those born with "defects" such as blindness, dwarfism, heart problems, genetic disease, etc. AND homosexuals. Why did God make his children to be this way? Are we next going to restrict privileges to all those classified as "defective?" What will be the supreme group to get all the rights and privileges? Let's show compassion toward all the people that God created. We need more love towards one another. Although many who oppose same sex marriage say they love the sinner but hate the sin, I see a very obvious hate in their writings, speech and actions toward homosexuals.

I must agree withyou God did make us all. But I believe homosexuality is a life choice not a birth defect.

God doesn't "make" homosexuals, except in the sense that we're all vulnerable to temptation. (In that sense, He "makes" thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. etc.) God makes humans, who have a proclivity for sin, and sexual sins seem to be some of the hardest to resist. Which is why sexual sins receive the most vehement condemnation. Rather than just calling it a sin, for example, homosexuality is termed an abomination in the Lord's sight.

But we can choose to be free of sin's bondage by accepting Christ's sacrifice. There are scores of ex-homosexuals who will attest to that fact. But the homosexual lobby does all they can to silence them - In fact, if there's anyone they hate more than conservative Christians, it's former homosexuals.

Birth defect? Are you for real?

I really don't know which is more offensive, referring to homosexuals as defects, or, as GMAN wrote, saying that homosexuals have a choice in their lifestyle.

First of all, WHY would someone choose to be homosexual when they don't even receive EQUAL rights? They can't get married; can't walk down the street with the person they love, hand-in-hand, without hearing derogatory comments, looks, and/or abuse. They're constantly told they're either a "defect" or an "abomination". So why would someone CHOOSE this lifestyle?

It's not a choice - homosexuals are born loving someone of the same sex, just as you are born loving someone of the opposite sex. Everything else is just like you - the same - there's no "defect".

mtmama - I appreciate your message when you say that we should show compassion toward all the people that God created. That we need more love towards one another. I couldn't agree more, but please don't be kind to homosexuals out of pity, because they are your equal, and as long as they live a life without hurting others, they will be going to heaven, just like you - REGARDLESS OF WHOM THEY LOVE.

Actually, the religious right tried to claim that, but in the end, they found the guy back with his old boyfriend. LOL!

You can't "change" someone who is BORN the way they are. Homosexuality is not a choice - period. You can quote the scripture all you want, but science has PROVEN that, and science is based on facts.

SCIENCE--HA,HA...
If that is so, where is the ozone hole? And why aren't we under water yet??The polar ice caps were supposed to have melted by 1980-then 85, then 2000...

Is this the same science that can't cure a common cold,cancer,mumps or just about anything else you can come up with. But you say they found out that your born homosexual and that it's a terrible life. Then what has science done to find a cure?

I don't see where the argument over science will get you anywhere. For as many science failures you can cite, there are just as many life saving achievements.

Sorry if I stomped on feelings with the word defects. That is why I put them in "-" to indicate that it is as close as I could come to a word that means born differently than the majority. What word could I use? No, I do not treat homsexuals with pity! I would like to see that people are treated equally regardless of their condition at birth. I do not think people make a choice to behave as a homosexual. It is something that one is born with. It is a positive direction that homosexuals can take control of their lives and NOT live in a shadow of shame.

Scientist claim about 1/3 of the American population is homosexual if this is true then this would be far and away the largest birth defect (for lack of knowing what to call homosexuality.. no disrespect meant) if this were true then we as a society have failed in our efforts to find a "cure" for this. If your honest in saying that you don't choose this lifestyle then one must believe your willing to find a cure. So I ask why not push for more research along with equal rights?

Science has also proven the exact opposite - that homosexuality has no genetic basis. If it runs in "families", many would claim, and the science has not disproven, that it is largely due to environmental influences. It has been proven too that homosexuality is associated with a dramatic decrease in life expectancy. All sorts of adverse efects have been proven to be highly associated with homosexuality. Etc etc etc. - we've been through this before.

Science can be misused and misinterpreted to "prove" all sorts of things. Often a critical review of the experimental design and a look at the hard data will show that the studies are of very limited scope and/or statistical significance, and data is sometimes misinterpreted by the researchers themselves.

It gets really bad when the results of scientific studies are reported for public consumption. Reporters make all sorts of assertions that the researchers themselves will often admit are far beyond the scope and results of the study. Often the reports claim proof of things that are only barely related to the study and its results.

Science has real limits, few people even know how to perform critical analyses of studies, and the vast majority of us hear only what the very uninformed and often misinformed and biased media tells us.

Don't forget Science is biased..if it is after gov't money its findings usually "happen" to coincide with the REQUIRED findings to get the $.
If it is a business's research dept, they look for ways to sell the product..no different...science is suspect--there is no PURE scientific research anymore --if there ever was...another societial myth put to shame

From the Irish Times...

When marriage between gays was by rite
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Boswell's book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union" having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place.

At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman-to-woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitude towards homosexuality.

FOR the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. That evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Jim Duffy is a writer and historian. The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell is published by Harper Collins.

The sad part about all of this is that it is in relation to Catholic history, not Christian history. If you know what the Bible says about saints and homosexuality, there is no conclusion but to realize if this really happened that the Catholic church was wrong. And in my opinion this normally is the case when it comes to the Christian life based on what the Bible says and not "Church doctrine".

The Bible clearly points out that any believer in Christ is a saint. There is no such process as beattification that the Catholic church uses for saints; another man-made tradition.

Also, it is quite clear what God thinks of homosexuality; he destroyed two towns and thousands of people who ignored God's warnings to turn from their homosexual ways.

St. BMIC says:

So apostacy is nothing new? Gee I would have never guessed.

Why should we be surprised to learn that the Episcopals weren't the first?

Pardon my severe lack of knowledge involving anything religion or of the bible, but were actual cities and people destroyed? Was it an actual event that took place in history? Did it really happen? And God was responsibile for it? And he did it because people were engaging in homosexuality?

Yes Heather, didn't you hear? According to those "great" religious figures, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, 9/11 happened because of gays, abortionists, the ACLU, etc. Didn't you know that God only accepts straight, white, pro-life, Christian people into Heaven? All others are going to hell.

I'm actually really curious to know what towns were destroyed because people are gay. This is all so ridiculous - it's almost laughable. I say ALMOST because the really sad part about it is that these people spread their hate and intolerance onto their children. Luckily, many children break out of their parents' destructive thinking, but unfortunately, some do not.

According to the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the activities going on there. That's where Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back.

Hence the term: Sodomy.

I'm not a Bible-thumper. I merely regard the Bible as a literary (not literal) work.

The activities going on there . . . when the Angels came to visit Lot's family, the crowd outside was clamoring for Lot to send them out so they could have sex with them. Both cities were all about sexual perversion, period.

Yes it's a historical fact. The most reliable account of history ever written reports it.

WHAT is a historical fact? And don't you think that if God really burnt down two cities because of homosexuality, San Francisco would've been burnt down a long time ago? Why wouldn't he continue to show his disdain today? He decided to give up the fight against homosexuality? I don't think so. The God that I have a relationship with, is loving and accepting of everyone. It's too bad that Christians don't practice what they preach - I don't think you're supposed to go around judging people. That's God's job, according to your history book ( ).

In our previous thread on this subject matter, mention of Matthew Shepard and other instances of violent acts toward homosexuals were discussed. Several people arguing against gays described these violent acts as repulsive and intolerable. It was said that these type of people give Christians and peaceful anti gay protesters a bad name. My point being, I don't see the difference. God destroyed whole cities full of homosexuals and that is deemed righteous, while others commiting violent acts upon gays are considered heartless scum of the earth?