Homosexual Marriage defeated by WIDE Margins

of course that doesn't cover sexual orientation, but who knows what else might be found in the minutiae of that site


interestingly (?) the Georgia information is not as easy to track down

I know from previous discussions that you aren't really against happiness for gays, McG, so it's unsurprising that you take the position that both you and I hold: that marriage/civil unions/whatever it is that grants governmental rights to folks ought to be seperate from the church.

And that is the point of not including the church in the discussion of whether or not marriage should be allowed for gays. It simply has no legal bearing on the rights of the individuals.

Now, as for a discussion as to why people are so homophobic, maybe we should look to the churches...

Cycloptichorn

Some people fail to understand that for other people marriage is a sacrament equal to birth, baptism, communion with God, death. Marriage is a life changing event between themselves, their spouse and their God. To them, gay marriage is an afront to their beliefs. Whether we understand that or not is immaterial. To them gay marriage is simply unspeakable.

So, the question is why should anyone's beliefs be trampled on over a word?

A civil union, if properly constructed under the law, would allow equal rights under a different name. If that requires a definition change for the word marriage, then so be it. Everyone gets what they want

McGentrix wrote:

Some people fail to understand that for other people marriage is a sacrament equal to birth, baptism, communion with God, death. Marriage is a life changing event between themselves, their spouse and their God. To them, gay marriage is an afront to their beliefs. Whether we understand that or not is immaterial. To them gay marriage is simply unspeakable.

So, the question is why should anyone's beliefs be trampled on over a word?

A civil union, if properly constructed under the law, would allow equal rights under a different name. If that requires a definition change for the word marriage, then so be it. Everyone gets what they want

You would off course abolish marriage completely from legislation, leaving all marriages civil unions in the eyes of the law right? And you would not restrict the rights of any religion, religious denomination, or similar organisation, to marry whoever they wish would you?

Sheesh, I was just about to agree with McG when my puter mouse flew onto the floor.

I agree with most of what you just said, McG. The 'problem' is the gay people who believe in God, who go to church regularly, who want God's blessing on their union, who want to be married.

There are some churches that have accepted gays into their community and that are offering marriages, in the church, to their gay congregants. Other churches choose not to. I believe both of those choices are, and should be, at the discretion of the church involved. Separation of church and state. It's a good thing. It once used to be an American touchstone.

It's odd watching the U.S. move more and more toward religious fundamentalism - toward the ways of the Middle East. It's not the country of its founders, who fought against religious interference.

ehBeth wrote:

Sheesh, I was just about to agree with McG when my puter mouse flew onto the floor.

I agree with most of what you just said, McG. The 'problem' is the gay people who believe in God, who go to church regularly, who want God's blessing on their union, who want to be married.

There are some churches that have accepted gays into their community and that are offering marriages, in the church, to their gay congregants. Other churches choose not to. I believe both of those choices are, and should be, at the discretion of the church involved. Separation of church and state. It's a good thing. It once used to be an American touchstone.

It's odd watching the U.S. move more and more toward religious fundamentalism - toward the ways of the Middle East. It's not the country of its founders, who fought against religious interference.

Having a country with a strong religious core hardly makes it a theocracy a religious fundamentalist state.

Having a country with a strong religious core hardly makes it a theocracy a religious fundamentalist state.

When the president states his intention to specifically outlaw gay marriage in the constitution, it is happening.

There are two seperate issues here:

1. Should gay couples be afforded the same rights as straight couples?

2. Should churches change to recognize the changes our society has undergone?

We really need to seperate these two questions in order to reach useful conclusions for either of them. I think everyone can agree that neither should have a single thing to do with the other.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

Having a country with a strong religious core hardly makes it a theocracy a religious fundamentalist state.

Open your eyes and look at America, McG.
It's a very different country than it was 15 - 20 years ago.

What "changes"? There have been gay people for a lot longer than the past few years.