Mando, the article clearly stated that 60% were in favor of some kind of civil union, it did not say they were in favor of marriage like you so smugly posted. :rolleyes:

It also said:

I hardlt think 400 people is a representative sample.
You are being dishonest and couldnt take the heat when Madman called you on it. I am glad you posted the article so we could see what it actually said. Otherwise we would have to take your inaccurate word on it. :rolleyes:

Look at the results of the poll on this page. And for your info, I voted that they should be able to have civil unions. It is different than marriage, and it should be.

I have to say I have nothing against gays, and this is a difficult issue for many families across the nation.

It goes against my own personal convictions, but sooner or later there will have to be a point where gays who enter the bonds of partnership have the same liberties as those of us who are heterosexual. I think Frontier's story about the guys he knew is a good enough example. I think some sort of recognized civil union would do alot to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening.

I myself I guess am one of the fucked up people who think that "marriage" is the religious bond between a man and a woman.(IMO) Meaning, that it was an institution traditionally founded upon the church and teachings from the bible. (also IMO)

The question is, do homosexual couples want a civil union to recognize their "lifestyle" and the fact that they too should get equal rights protection under law? -or- Do they want to further their own "lifestyle" political agenda and force society to accept them and at the same time change laws to make them appear more "normal" thus forcing the masses to accept something that the majority still believes is "abnormal"?

Look, if you want to be gay, then be gay. It's morally wrong IMO, but it's the right of the individual...And those rights should be protected under the law in the form of a civil union of some sort. Why isn't that enough for them? Why the need to force an agenda that is "lifestyle" based upon the rest of us as if every other person feels it's normal?

But no matter what laws are passed, no matter how the homosexual agenda is forced upon society, they will never be able to legislate acceptance.

I'm sorry, but acceptance and "normalcy" seem to be at the core of the debate.

Equating slavery and holocaust to the gay issue is just plain stupid. I don't see gays being shackled and loaded up on trains. Nor do I see them as being a "race" as they would like the rest of us to think they are. I do see violence unfortunatly...the incident with the Sheppard kid was bad, not the norm. Most of us accept the fact that some people are gay. Does it hurt me in any way? Not at all, until the gay interest groups want to come into my kids school and teach homosexuality as normal sexual behavior. Not until homosexuals want to adopt children and attend my church as a family in the guise that being gay is normal.

The other day I was sitting at the Social Security office waiting to get an application put through for a duplicate card.

When this old, very old lady comes in. Explains to the people that her husband just died, and she only get $62 a month in Social Security, while her husband got $1100. So after a little typing they transfered his account to her, so she will now get his funds.

Gay couples also deserve this protection. Fine, don't call it marriage because it seems like it's something to do with the bible. But remember that Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc also get married, no bible involved.

Oops, You're right Jorge. I directed my comment at Christianity, when I should have said religion in a more general sense. (also not to offend the atheists either)

However, these groups you mentioned aren't the topic of debate. It's the lifestyle, and the right of "marriage"

So let me get this straight. Gay people can get married but not in a christian way? I was under the impression that marriage was a christian act.

I think you mean religious, not christian (otherwise, does that mean all the jews did a christian act?).

Anyway. So when two people go through the justice of the peace *without* a religious ceremony, shouldn't it be called a civil union, not a marriage?

Or what about common law marrage.. No religion in that one either.

Please don't put words in my mouth Dave, read my first post. I think I made it clear that I was stating my own opinion.

I also said that I felt that gay unions should be protected. Marriage is an element of many religions and of society itself.

Changing laws to fit ones lifestyle is nothing more than attention grabbing and forcing society to accept. A pandoras box waiting to be opened...

Doesn't bother me one way or the other. I have other beefs with the government that do.

BTW, I was married by the J.O.P. 18 years ago.

Atheists
Buddhists
Taoists
Zoroastrians
Muslims
Hindus
Sikhs

They all get married, and not one of them is christian.

I think you all know what he is saying. Marriage is a Christian Sacrement. Many people get married. Whether or not they should is the question. God did not intended for marriage to be for non believers, hence much of the problem with divorce in our society.

so what do you call it when two Jewish people get "married"

Or any other religion for that matter? Is "marriage" a christian only word?

What did people do before Christianity? How do we know what God wants? Does he talk to you on a regular basis? Don't say the Bible. The interpertation of that document depends on your personal or religious views.

When two Jewish people get married it is called marriage. What did people do before Christianity? Lot's of things I suppose. They followed the writings and teachings of the Old Testament. How do we know what God wants? You listen to Him and obey His word - The Bible. Does God speak to me? Yes, He directs my life and will to anyone opens up to Him.

That's all well and good for you, but it shouldn't dictate how laws are created.

What do you think the founding fathers of this country used to dictate laws? Has society perverted itself that far?

ps. I saw you the other day on the road. Nice looking truck.

I thought it said in the bible that god would never talk directly to mankind. Did I mis-interpret the writings? Another thing.. If god's word is so precise then why are their so many factions of christianity? That would seem to me that things are a bit more fuzzy about what the bible means.

Carlton, you seem to have a lot of questions about religion and Christianity which is great. I am by no means an religous scholar. I am simply a school teacher who tries to make the best decisions in life based on the ones who came before me. I try to listen with my heart and not my head. Everything that I have read and have been taught from the Bible just seems right to me. I would also suggest to anyone that has not read from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Proverbs, and Psalms to give it a shot. For your questions about the different denomonations- there are reasons for them all which evolved throughout history. As far a God "speaking" literally with a voice you are correct. As I said before, God directs my life.

We dont need to make this a religious issue. It is an equal protection issue. If you allow one kind of alternative marriage, you have to let all kinds. If you are fine with polygamy marriages, incestual marriage, etc etc etc, then I guess thats your opinion. You cant make special rights for one group (gays)and not allow those same rights for another group(polygamists etc.)

Since the gays do not want to find a middle ground, since they want to force it down our throats with no consideration to alternative ideas (civil union) that would pretty much give them what they are looking for. (IE benefits, SS, etc.) Then they should be denied altogether.

I for one, am not ready to see it legal for people to have multiple husbands and wives, to have brothers marry sisters, to have mothers and fathers marry thier sons and daughters, to have people marry animals.

You can stick your heads in the sand, but this is the inevitable conclusion that will be reached if they allow gays the status of marriage.

If the gays want to play hardball, then those opposed should play hardball back. Why should we be expected to work with them for a solution when they have made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to discuss the matter rationally.

Errr, what?

There is a Sacrement of Marriage in _some_ christian traditions. It isn't a sacrement in all of them. It is incorrect to state the reverse, that Marriage is a christian sacrement.

Marriage is not a word owned exclusively by Christians. The word itself comes from the Latin 'maritus'.

Estonian pre-Christian mythology speaks of heroes and their wives. The institution of marriage existed even before Judaism appeared, not to mention Christianity.

There is a problem with divorce in this country, because their are plenty of people who call themselves christians who find it easier to tell other people how to live, than to follow the path of Christ themselves.

Tim
(edited to capitalize Christ)

Welllll.. lets get this thing straight - some branches of christianity are in fact prohibit you from reading that stuff. Only priest shall do it.

Secondly, lets not go in that argument at all. Back in days of serious orthodox church it was considered as dirty to eat/speak/live with catholics. People were told to throw away plates&silverware if they had to have catholics in their house as guests. Few centuries after in totally different part of the civilized world, namely England, people were keeping warm in winter by burning catholics.

So lets not go in depths of living by the word of the God, as christians could not sort things amongst themselves, though they presumably going after same things.

As of whole marriage thing - as correctly was pointed out - it did exist LONG before Christianity ever started, and will probably exist in some form long after it will be forgotten (unless humankind will manage to curl up and die of course. Which is somewhat possible given the current pace of things)

Eh? There isnt much of mythology apart from Kalevipoeg, to my recollection Where you got more of it?

By all means its interesting to see someone here who actually managed to read such thing.

There is a big difference between gays and the others you listed. (namely polygamy, incest, marrying young girls..which you mentioned earlier). It is not against the law to be gay. It is however against the law to have more than one husband/wife, marry your immediate family member, engage in statutory rape, and all other UNLAWFUL things you are relating to this.

I have 2 uncles that are gay, I treat them as I would treat any of my straight relatives, I will admit that when I see them kissing their partners or holding hands, it does give me the willies, that is only because I cannot see having those kinds of feelings for another man. I do feel that if they are in a commited relationship, they should be able to make that commitment legal and have all the privileges that come with it, just as straight couples do. Do you have to call it marriage? no, civil union works just fine for me.

OK, let's assume that was what they intended.

Why aren't commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 codified in any sort?

And WHICH commandments were they going by? The Protestant? Catholic? Hebrew? All three have different parts.

Kalev is the epic hero who is credited for the founding of Estonia. When he was killed his wife, Linda, wanted to bury him in his own grave.

Marriage is not the sole domain of any religion. The institution of mariiage is included within most religions.

Even if you find primitive people who have no concept of our society, they usually have a form of marriage.

It's not only a religious concept. It's not a Western concept.

It's the natural order of society. A man and a woman. It's normal. It's the way it has been since the beginning of time.

Now people want to change this. Many for various different reasons. Many because they are fools.

It's wrong no matter how you look at it.

so when did they invent Gays?. any sign how far back the fenomonon (like that word) goes?. Did it start with an experiment or did it really take off in the 80ties with Wang Chung and Men without hats? (safety dance).....

Just wondering