NationStates Jolt Archive

I am very aware of this fact and will be surprised if anyone actually reads this, but please read this if you dissagree with gay marrige on religious grounds.

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed:

-to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). -And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), -wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) -or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.

Yay.
I read it, but since I don't disagree, I don't have anything to say.

I don't understand why most people don't just get the gov't out of marriage altogether, instead of continuing the gay marriage debate

@Super
Marriage involves a number of legal benefits, and those are pretty important. Tax breaks for families with children, being legally considered kin (and therefore able to visit while in critical condition in the hospital, etc), and a number of other things. Government involvement in the institution is, therefore, necessary.

I am very aware of this fact and will be surprised if anyone actually reads this, but please read this if you dissagree with gay marrige on religious grounds.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the homophobic make decisions based on logic.

@Super
Marriage involves a number of legal benefits, and those are pretty important. Tax breaks for families with children, being legally considered kin (and therefore able to visit while in critical condition in the hospital, etc), and a number of other things. Government involvement in the institution is, therefore, necessary.
Why not just give all those benefits to civil unions?

Why not just give all those benefits to civil unions?
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks logically.

I don't understand why most people don't just get the gov't out of marriage altogether, instead of continuing the gay marriage debate
I see no reason why the social institution of government should be alienated from the social institution of marraige.

Why not just give all those benefits to civil unions?
A legally recognised marraige is a civil union.

There is no legitimate reason why government should all of a sudden 'get out' of marraige. I doubt that there are sufficiently good reasons for government to get out of marraige, but irregardless, whether or no government should or shouldnt have involvement in marraiges, is an entirely different issue to whether or not people of the same gender and/or sex should be able to marry one another, the latter tells us nothing about how we should decide the former, and the former at the most is only capable of making the latter a moot point. Certainly the latter should not effect the decision made with regards to the former.

Yay.
I read it, but since I don't disagree, I don't have anything to say.
Double-yay.

A legally recognised marraige is a civil union.
Right, so why not get the government out of marriage and keep it in civil unions? Then, people can be restricted from getting marriages but not from getting civil unions and all of the legal rights accompanying them.

Right, so why not get the government out of marriage and keep it in civil unions? Then, people can be restricted from getting marriages but not from getting civil unions and all of the legal rights accompanying them.

Because Civil Marriage = Exactly same thing as Civil Union?

Because Civil Marriage = Exactly same thing as Civil Union?
Let's try this again. You seem to be tripping on the definitions, facetiously or not.

Define a sasquatch to be a union that is performed by a church. Define a dirigible to be a union that is recognized by the government.

All sasquatches should be dirigibles, but not all dirigibles need to be sasquatches. Make dirigibles available to all. Keep the government out of sasquatches.

Get it?

Let's try this again. You seem to be tripping on the definitions, facetiously or not.

Define a sasquatch to be a union that is performed by a church. Define a dirigible to be a union that is recognized by the government.

All sasquatches should be dirigibles, but not all dirigibles need to be sasquatches. Make dirigibles available to all. Keep the government out of sasquatches.

Get it?
Sasquatches are tasty.

Let's try this again. You seem to be tripping on the definitions, facetiously or not.

Define a sasquatch to be a union that is performed by a church. Define a dirigible to be a union that is recognized by the government.

All sasquatches should be dirigibles, but not all dirigibles need to be sasquatches. Make dirigibles available to all. Keep the government out of sasquatches.

Get it?

Randomly replacing words in an analogy = hard time for a poor half drunk like myself =(

Come again?

I don't understand why most people don't just get the gov't out of marriage altogether, instead of continuing the gay marriage debate
i don't understand why people don't just get religion out of marriage altogether instead of continuing the gay marriage debate.

Let's try this again. You seem to be tripping on the definitions, facetiously or not.

Define a sasquatch to be a union that is performed by a church. Define a dirigible to be a union that is recognized by the government.

All sasquatches should be dirigibles, but not all dirigibles need to be sasquatches. Make dirigibles available to all. Keep the government out of sasquatches.

Get it?
It doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, whether you're white, black, or Sasquatch, even. As long as you follow your dream, no matter how crazy or against the law it is... except for Sasquatch. If you're Sasquatch, the rules are different.

I see no reason why the social institution of government should be alienated from the social institution of marraige.


A legally recognised marraige is a civil union.

There is no legitimate reason why government should all of a sudden 'get out' of marraige. I doubt that there are sufficiently good reasons for government to get out of marraige, but irregardless, whether or no government should or shouldnt have involvement in marraiges, is an entirely different issue to whether or not people of the same gender and/or sex should be able to marry one another, the latter tells us nothing about how we should decide the former, and the former at the most is only capable of making the latter a moot point. Certainly the latter should not effect the decision made with regards to the former.

A: Irregardless isn't a word.

B: There's a perfectly legitimate reason for government to get out of it; marriage is a traditionally religious institution. We have constitutional prohibitions against government promoting or interfering in religious affairs. If marriage is declared beyond the perview of government, and the tax benifits limited to the government institution of the "civil union" then all religions in the country are protected. The government doesn't have to get involved in promoting the Baptists' point of view or the Episcopalians'.

C: You say "make the latter a moot point" as though making a controversial topic trivial is itself trivial. If the government takes no sides in who can get married and who can't then sane people can tell insane idiots to do whatever they want in their own Churches and we'll do our weddings however we see fit. It settles all issues because believing in gay marriage does not mean you believe in gay marriage by a baptist minister.

B: There's a perfectly legitimate reason for government to get out of it; marriage is a traditionally religious institution. We have constitutional prohibitions against government promoting or interfering in religious affairs. If marriage is declared beyond the perview of government, and the tax benifits limited to the government institution of the "civil union" then all religions in the country are protected. The government doesn't have to get involved in promoting the Baptists' point of view or the Episcopalians'.

A little known secret: Some words have more than one definition.

Just thought you should know.

Let's try this again. You seem to be tripping on the definitions, facetiously or not.

Define a sasquatch to be a union that is performed by a church. Define a dirigible to be a union that is recognized by the government.

All sasquatches should be dirigibles, but not all dirigibles need to be sasquatches. Make dirigibles available to all. Keep the government out of sasquatches.

Get it?

You are either stoned or a genius. OR both. :fluffle:

B: There's a perfectly legitimate reason for government to get out of it; marriage is a traditionally religious institution. We have constitutional prohibitions against government promoting or interfering in religious affairs. If marriage is declared beyond the perview of government, and the tax benifits limited to the government institution of the "civil union" then all religions in the country are protected. The government doesn't have to get involved in promoting the Baptists' point of view or the Episcopalians'.

Not this again -_-

You are either stoned or a genius. OR both. :fluffle:
I guess that makes me a genius, but maybe I should be stoned.

...

Arthur: What's so unpleasant about being drunk?
Ford: You ask a glass of water.

Seeing as marrige is a religious dealy, I suppose us Agonistics and Atheists can't/shouldn't get married?

And btw, Marrige was around for a long time before Christianity, and it is a legal concept. The problem with Civil unions is that they deny several of the rights/privledges of marrige, such as a built in will leaving everything to the spouse, preventing the spouse from making medical decisions for the other while the other is in a coma, ecetera.

As well, mind your own business. It doesn't hurt you.

Right, so why not get the government out of marriage and keep it in civil unions? Then, people can be restricted from getting marriages but not from getting civil unions and all of the legal rights accompanying them.
Let's try this again. You seem to be tripping on the definitions, facetiously or not.

Define a sasquatch to be a union that is performed by a church. Define a dirigible to be a union that is recognized by the government.

All sasquatches should be dirigibles, but not all dirigibles need to be sasquatches. Make dirigibles available to all. Keep the government out of sasquatches.

Get it?
I never didnt get it. I simply see absolutely no reason to do so. Why should marraige be redefined? Marraiges are a type of civil union. Why should that change?
Most of all, why should 'ownership' of marraige suddenly be given over to any particular group, such as churches. If churches do not like the social institution and civil union known as marraige, no one is forcing them to be participants.

B: There's a perfectly legitimate reason for government to get out of it; marriage is a traditionally religious institution. We have constitutional prohibitions against government promoting or interfering in religious affairs. If marriage is declared beyond the perview of government, and the tax benifits limited to the government institution of the "civil union" then all religions in the country are protected. The government doesn't have to get involved in promoting the Baptists' point of view or the Episcopalians'.
No marraige is an institution that traditionally many religions incorporate into their practises, and often also have strong beliefs about. It is no more traditionally a religious institution than eating is.

For the umpteenth time, marraige is a social institution. If you dont know that, then you are not qualified to have an opinion on issue.

I never didnt get it. I simply see absolutely no reason to do so. Why should marraige be redefined? Marraiges are a type of civil union. Why should that change?
Most of all, why should 'ownership' of marraige suddenly be given over to any particular group, such as churches. If churches do not like the social institution and civil union known as marraige, no one is forcing them to be participants.
I'm not redefining it. I'm making a distinction between the current definitions of marriage and civil unions by giving them different names. The government cannot force a church to marry homosexual couples. Churches cannot force the government not to marry them. It's not a matter of who came up with it first.

I'm not redefining it. I'm making a distinction between the current definitions of marriage and civil unions by giving them different names. The government cannot force a church to marry homosexual couples. Churches cannot force the government not to marry them. It's not a matter of who came up with it first.
Giving something different names is redefining. As it is a civil union is any union of a civil nature, for instance a contract that joins the interests of two parties as one for the purposes of business is a form of civil union, but it is not a marraige. Marraige is to civil unions what bannanas are to fruit, ie a subcategory.
Obviously in any situation where there is a seperation or state and religion, the government cannot force the church to do anything that isnt required of others (ie refrain from commiting crimes, pay taxes if applicable, abide by employment safety laws, etc).
The fact is marraige doesnt belong to religions. Why should I not be able to get married as my parents and their parents and their parents before them did, but have to settle for a 'civil union'. If it's just semantics, then why bother to change it. If there is any point to changing it, then it goes beyond semantics. I have as much right to be married (rather than 'civil unioned') as anyone else, regardless of whether or not I am religious.

You are either stoned or a genius. OR both. :fluffle:

i quite agree....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/04/ny.gaymarriage.ap/index.html

I read it, but since I oppose homosexual 'marriage' on purely secular grounds, I'll have to wait for the 1,000,000,001th thread on the topic. :p

I read it, but since I oppose homosexual 'marriage' on purely secular grounds, I'll have to wait for the 1,000,000,001th thread on the topic. :p

There is no secular reason to oppose equal rights for all.

There is no secular reason to oppose equal rights for all.

Thanks for that, but secular notions and liberal political notions are not correlative as a rule.

Edit: also, that should've read "1,000,000,001st." :)

Thanks for that, but secular notions and liberal political notions are not correlative as a rule.

So you don't believe that all human beings should be treated equally?

So you don't believe that all human beings should be treated equally?

Well, to be fair to PD, nor does US law.

Well, to be fair to PD, nor does US law.

US law explicitly states that all citizens should receive equal treatment under the law. It isn't the Constitution's fault that people choose to shit all over it.

US law explicitly states that all citizens should receive equal treatment under the law. It isn't the Constitution's fault that people choose to shit all over it.

No, it doesn't. Constitutional law allows different classes of people to be treated differently, as long as the distinction is narrowly drawn, and under strict judicial sctrutiny serves a compelling state interest.

It those conditions are met, then you can treat groups of people differently.

Also, if the class of people described does not fall under the rubric of a "protected" class then again they can be treated differently, as long as the legislation is rationally related to its intended purpose.

If that were not the case, progressive income tax would be illegal.

Marriage is for faggots.

No, it doesn't. Constitutional law allows different classes of people to be treated differently, as long as the distinction is narrowly drawn, and under strict judicial sctrutiny serves a compelling state interest.

You are correct, a compelling state interest can override equal treatment. Of course, that means that anyone wishing to impose unequal treatment must provide one.

You are correct, a compelling state interest can override equal treatment. Of course, that means that anyone wishing to impose unequal treatment must provide one.

Or, as I said, if the class is not protected. As in the case at bar (rightly or wrongly).

Or, as I said, if the class is not protected. As in the case at bar (rightly or wrongly).

(a) the 14th amendment says very clearly that equal protection cannot be denied to any person under a state's jurisdiction.

(b) the Supreme Court has held, time and time again, that sexuality falls under the "sex" protected class.

(b) the Supreme Court has held, time and time again, that sexuality falls under the "sex" protected class.

Hmm, I thought only one superiot court judge in WA, had ruled that. Do you have and cites - ? I am honestly curious and not being snippy.

I am very aware of this fact and will be surprised if anyone actually reads this, but please read this if you dissagree with gay marrige on religious grounds.


Ok well first of all....the whole thing is different for everyone. I mean myself personally I wouldnt like to take my son out to play in the park and have two men making out on a bench. I really wouldnt like to explain to my son why little Billy down the street doesnt have a mommy but has two daddys some things are just wrong. I mean marriage is something that is shared between a MAN and a WOMAN not two men or two women. And as for justification using the Bible yes I do use it, and the Bible also says all have sinned and came short of the glory of God so your little scenario is kinda put into that context, however the Bible does also say that should a man lay with another man like he would a woman that is an abomination to God and that is pure n simple.

(a) the 14th amendment says very clearly that equal protection cannot be denied to any person under a state's jurisdiction.

(b) the Supreme Court has held, time and time again, that sexuality falls under the "sex" protected class.

Yeah well the amendments also say that the gov cannot pass any laws pretaining to the separation of church and state, this means for or AGAINST it, yet time and time again the Supreme Court is ruling to take God out of our public schools

Yeah well the amendments also say that the gov cannot pass any laws pretaining to the separation of church and state, this means for or AGAINST it, yet time and time again the Supreme Court is ruling to take God out of our public schools

the gay marriage bruhaha is not really about religion, except insofar as people who are against it are motivated by it.

Hmm, I thought only one superiot court judge in WA, had ruled that. Do you have and cites - ? I am honestly curious and not being snippy.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 1996.

However, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show there is no legitimate reason for the law, or that the exclusion is not rationally related to any government interest.

On homosexual marriage, the facts speak for themselves - in the text of the DOMA, or any future Amendment proposal, I'm certain the argument for legitimacy will be thoroughly made, and the future Scalia court will be receptive if a dispute arises. I mean, look at Printz v. U.S., (1997), and how the court almost decided (5-4) that the "epidemic" of gun violence was sufficent reason to require state law enforcement to take federal law into their own hands to enforce some of the more oppressive provisions of the Brady bill...

My objection to homosexual marriage is more principle than legal, but I thought I'd put that out there.

Yeah well the amendments also say that the gov cannot pass any laws pretaining to the separation of church and state, this means for or AGAINST it, yet time and time again the Supreme Court is ruling to take God out of our public schools

Do you understand the logistical implications of having religions in public schools? Hell, there must be millions of religions and seperate denominations and, according to our constitution, they would all have to have equal attention.

Yeah well the amendments also say that the gov cannot pass any laws pretaining to the separation of church and state, this means for or AGAINST it, yet time and time again the Supreme Court is ruling to take God out of our public schools

Under the concept of seperation of church and state he should have never been there in the first place.

Do you understand the logistical implications of having religions in public schools? Hell, there must be millions of religions and seperate denominations and, according to our constitution, they would all have to have equal attention.

That's why the pro-prayer groups advocate optional prayer, given a 'moment of silence' before class. That way, you can pray to whatever you want, or nap, or whatever. The overwhelming majority of the public supports it, and it should be legal. In fact, it is legal in many states. Prayer is a dull topic compared to the homosexual agenda, really.

The hell is wrong with this thread? Won't let me see page 4....

The hell is wrong with this thread? Won't let me see page 4....

Hah, that worked. Jammed it through somehow.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 1996.

However, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show there is no legitimate reason for the law, or that the exclusion is not rationally related to any government interest.

On homosexual marriage, the facts speak for themselves - in the text of the DOMA, or any future Amendment proposal, I'm certain the argument for legitimacy will be thoroughly made, and the future Scalia court will be receptive if a dispute arises. I mean, look at Printz v. U.S., (1997), and how the court almost decided (5-4) that the "epidemic" of gun violence was sufficent reason to require state law enforcement to take federal law into their own hands to enforce some of the more oppressive provisions of the Brady bill...

My objection to homosexual marriage is more principle than legal, but I thought I'd put that out there.

Heh. Have you considered the implications of the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause on the constitutionality of DOMA (which was signed into law by Clinton, as I recall).

Homophobia isn't logical because fear is based on misunderstanding and thus void of logic.

Homophobia isn't logical because fear is based on misunderstanding and thus void of logic.

Well, now that we have that covered...all you have to do prove that logic is the appropriate model to use for interpreting the nature of our reality.

Well, now that we have that covered...all you have to do prove that logic is the appropriate model to use for interpreting the nature of our reality.

Logic is appropriate. Fear is not. I can give logic to everything.

Homophobia isn't logical because fear is based on misunderstanding and thus void of logic.

Compositional fallacies aren't very good logic either, friend.

Logic is appropriate. Fear is not. I can give logic to everything.

Are you a member of some sort of cult? And why do you just beg the question instead of answering it?

Are you a member of some sort of cult? And why do you just beg the question instead of answering it?

The question being why people fear gay marriage? Because they don't know what will happen when people aren't bound to a structure.

Well, now that we have that covered...all you have to do prove that logic is the appropriate model to use for interpreting the nature of our reality.

I think he means rational rather than logical. :confused:

Compositional fallacies aren't very good logic either, friend.
Don't call a person you wouldn't like friend.

Don't call a person you wouldn't like friend.

There's no ill will on my end.

The question being why people fear gay marriage?

That was not the question I posed. Perhaps you were confused by my use of the word question.

I initially challenged you to prove that logic is the appropriate model to use for interpreting the nature of our reality. Would you like to respond logically to the challenge instead of committing the "Begging the Question" fallacy?

That was not the question I posed. Perhaps you were confused by my use of the word question.

I initially challenged you to prove that logic is the appropriate model to use for interpreting the nature of our reality. Would you like to respond logically to the challenge instead of committing the "Begging the Question" fallacy?

Well I believe logic can prove anything. As you could ask any question and have it answered with logic. Does that answer your question? I'm sorry but I've been working with children all day and am not much for being philosophical. And being gay makes me very stubborn when it comes to this. I don't think straight white males can ever understand being a minority. I gather that's what you are.

Sorry, you won't get much of an argument out of me, religion or not, I want to marry someone I love, and not have it just called a Union.

Well I believe logic can prove anything. As you could ask any question and have it answered with logic. Does that answer your question?

Not even close.

I'm sorry but I've been working with children all day and am not much for being philosophical.

Understandable. I myself am closing out my overnight shift at work after a full day off classes, so I can understand that tiredness might be causing problems.

And being gay makes me very stubborn when it comes to this. I don't think straight white males can ever understand being a minority. I gather that's what you are.

1. You seem to be under the impression that I'm making a case for gay marraige being illegal. This is a false impression. I personally believe that homosexuals should be granted equal rights. I merely enjoy playing Devil's Advocate.

2. I am a indeed a straight white male, and I assure you that I know what it's like to be a minority. I grew up in a neighborhood where I was abused because of my perceived racial identity. I had to work twice as hard as the people with dark skin to earn the respect of my peers.

1. You seem to be under the impression that I'm making a case for gay marraige being illegal. This is a false impression. I personally believe that homosexuals should be granted equal rights. I merely enjoy playing Devil's Advocate.

2. I am a indeed a straight white male, and I assure you that I know what it's like to be a minority. I grew up in a neighborhood where I was abused because of my perceived racial identity. I had to work twice as hard as the people with dark skin to earn the respect of my peers.

Good'o. Well no need to preach to the converted, but I'm sure the "dark skin"ed people wouldn't agree with you. Remembering they ones worked hundreds of times harder than white males not resulting in any respect. But I won't be playing that card today. If we are going to have a battle about what logic answers, be clear and precise, write out the words you want me to answer, if you understand my position as I think you may, don't coat it in 7 syllable filler.

Ok well first of all....the whole thing is different for everyone. I mean myself personally I wouldnt like to take my son out to play in the park and have two men making out on a bench.
I find it disgusting that you expect people to be forever denied the right to marry the one they love, because you dont like the idea of explaining relationships that are not your business, to kids whose business it also isnt. Perhaps instead you should teach Billy why gossip is a sin in the eyes of the Lord.

I really wouldnt like to explain to my son why little Billy down the street doesnt have a mommy but has two daddys some things are just wrong.
Then dont explain it. Tell him it's none of his business. Why are you so convinced that little Billy even cares?

I mean marriage is something that is shared between a MAN and a WOMAN not two men or two women.
No it isnt something only shared between a man and a women. You might wish it were, you might think it should be, but marraige is not universally an institution shared between one man and one women. I dont understand how anyone who knows nothing of the basic facts of marraige can imagine themselves qualified to tell others what their marraige ought to look like. If you believe that marraige is and has always been between a man and a women only, then you dont actually know very much about marraige.

And as for justification using the Bible yes I do use it,
You can use it as much as you like, but you might as well not bother if you intend to argue what the law should be, in a state where religion and state are mandated as seperate.

and the Bible also says all have sinned and came short of the glory of God so your little scenario is kinda put into that context,
The bible isnt relevent to the law in a state where religion and state are mandated as being seperate.

however the Bible does also say that should a man lay with another man like he would a woman that is an abomination to God and that is pure n simple.
And my boy's comic book says that if you love Pikachu enough, eventually he might evolve into Riachu. This of course isnt relevent to the law.

I suggest if you so believe in the message of the bible, you ask what 'free will' is about. Does it mean, sin or not as you will, and be judged accordingly, or does it mean, be forcably stopped from sinning by others? How dare you interfere with God's decreed will. God wants people to choose to sin or not for themselves, I dont see how you imagine you have an authority that trumps Gods. The fact is, if someone wants to marry one of their own sex, then either it is no sin to do so, or the sin is already committed. It makes no difference whether the marraige occurs or not. As for 'but my kids will see', so what! It wont harm them or traumatise them to know that people love each other! We can trust that God will provide as he does for the sparrow, and that whatever tests the Lord sends the way of little Billy and his little friends, are no more than is their measure. You know it's true, the bible tells you so! The bible is not a pick and mix buffet intended for use in justifying the biggotry of every bossy 'no life of their own' big nose that can put a hand to it.

Through his son, God tells us to render unto Ceaser, God doesnt own government, God doesnt own state made laws, Ceaser refers to the state, the making of laws that are of the state, belongs to the state. Render unto Ceaser the making of laws. Keep the covenent seperate. The state has it's own laws, which are enforcable in the flesh, on earth. The law of the Lord are followed only through choice, that is the glory and honour of a Christian. Not through force, or because any earthly power can force them, but through submission to the will of the Lord, by choice, as an act of love.

God decrees free will, so God's children must give witness to free will. Did you not know of the commandment against false witness?

Look to your own relationship with God. Judge not least ye be judged. Pull the beam from your own eye before you worry about the mote in your brothers. Gossip is a sin, mayhap you should explain that to little Billy instead of giving him the nitty gritty on the personal lives of his neighbours.

Live your life in the Lord, witness by your example of a life in the Lord's love that can show to others the desirability of a relationship with God.
If believing in God renders one a bossy nosy bigot who concerns themselves with the marraiges of those they do not even know, then who the heck wants to be a Christian? That is not what following Christ's teachings are about. To act as you act, bears false witness to the teachings of the Lord and Christ his son. And that my friend is a sin.

I am very aware of this fact and will be surprised if anyone actually reads this, but please read this if you dissagree with gay marrige on religious grounds.


OP the people that do the complaining are the ones that know their faith the least. The rest of the Chrisitians are simply uncomfortable with the idea that gays will be able to marry.

edit: don't let the xian fundamentalists fool you into thinking the rest of their faith feels the same. I have a good friend and an excellent xian and he is unhappy with the idea, but grins and bears it.