Same Sex Marriage

[GodIsGood]

I am not trying to pick a fight, but I do have one question based on your statement. It appears to me that you view marriage as a religious union. So, in this view, you now want the state to step in and legally define a religious belief?

 

No fight assumed AH! IMO the only reason intervention from the state and fed are being sought is because of the attempted theft of a sacred covenant which also happens to be the cornerstone of civilizations with a future, healthy families, normal and natural relationships.

 

If I wanted the state senate or the supreme court to come to take up my cause and rule that I could be a PICKLE - I'd bet pickles all around the world would be reaching for their Bibles and guns.

 

Again - not my rule, God's rule according to my truth source - the Bible, which also says hate the sin but LOVE THE SINNER.

 

Homo-phobs and haters - you are mistaken and as misguided as thems who would try to "marry" their same sex. Your judgment and hatred only emboldens their resolve to NEVER face/overcome their sin.

[AzHunt]

Rembrant, do you think that part of the reason the "x-gay" people you know were unhappy could possibly be because of the "shame" of being homosexual society has placed upon them as well as having to hide the fact they were homosexuals day in day out? Just a question.

 

GodisGood, thank you for your responses, I appreciate the thought, rationale, and delivery of your discussions.

 

Again, I do not know of any homosexuals in this situation. However, I do feel that once the government starts condoning and legally defining religious practices, we will have problems. I think that one could argue that since the government has already stepped into this issue, that is when the real problems began. If the church was the only authority on this issue, then how could there be a problem? The church would have their viewpoint and practices and that would be it. In my opinion, the government should have no stake in marriage. They should not be able to charge you a fee if you want to get married. However, I do realize that this will never change. Having said that, if the the government, which is responsible to uphold the bill of rights for every individual wants to step in and be involved in marriage, are they not responsible to provide the same rights for everybody?

 

 

[AzHuntAtty]

 

 

There are a number of reasons to oppose gay marriage. The most obvious is it will weaken and dilute the importance of traditional marriage and family. If gay marriage is allowed in this state or in any other state, state run institutions, including schools, will begin adopting policies and practices to put homosexual marriage on equal footing with traditional marriage. This would be unavoidable. In that vein, schools will begin teaching our children that homosexuality is an acceptable option and equal to traditional marriage. Such teaching would directly collide with what I believe and what I teach my children and puts me in a position where I may be forced to take my children out of the public system. If the state adopts such policies it will necessarily start encroaching on religious freedom. Let me give you an example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. For example, Catholic Charities in Boston (Massachusetts allows gay marriage) has stopped offering adoption services because of the governmental opposition it faces as a result of its opposition and refusal to place children in same-sex homes.

 

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege and a bundle of legal rights that society has given men and women in order to encourage and sustain family life. If society is not willing to give that same set of rights to homosexuals, it has that right. This is not an equal protection issue. For any of you who think differently, distinguish for me the difference between plural marriage (which is currently against the laws of every state in the union) and same-sex marriage. If you allow same-sex marriage on the basis that government cannot tell consenting adults who they must marry, how can government tell consenting adults who want to engage in plural marriage they do not have the same right?

 

Finally, I want to comment on why Proposition 102 (which will be on the November ballot) is so important. As most of you know, some years ago California voters overwhelmingly passed a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. A recent California Supreme Court decision, made by unelected judges, has undone the people's mandate under the guise of "equal protection." Arizona, like California, currently has a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. Similar to California, however, this could be undone by appointed judges. Thus, Proposition 102 would amend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. Such an amendment would keep the issue out of reach of the unelected judges. I would encourage everyone to vote yes on 102.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

It is a moral issue which throws this into one of those ethical discussions which in turn falls into the eyes of the beholder. But, it is not natural, it is a law set forth by our maker....kind of like Zig Ziglar said about gravity......you can fight the laws of gravity all you want, but if you keep jumping people off the 10 story building you will continue to prove that law to be true.

 

Does that affect me....people jumping off the building? No, because I know and understand the law of gravity. But what if somebody decides to make it look fun.......and now my neighbors kids want to try it....and next thing you know, my kids feel it is something they want to try.......does it affect me now???

 

I think most of us in the Christian realm, I guess I can't speak for all of them, but yes we are afraid. Afraid that we will now not be able to teach that marriage between a man and a woman are a gift from God because now we are discriminating. Are we discriminating? I guess we are, and that is our belief. I could care less if gays want to marry, but don't tell me in the same breath that I can't teach my kids it is a sin.

 

I think there is probably something to say about keeping state and church seperate, big can of worms there that I don't understand other than the judges who are ultimately turning things around even though the majority has voted on an issue really makes the water murky.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

AZHUNT, I agree with the government has already stepped in the cowpie and now can't get it off their shoe and can't stop the stink. I guess that means I have a double standard....I don't want Gov. involved, but I don't want to have my rights as a father, grandfather taken away either........I want to be able to teach my kids true pricipals that are solid and will bring them happiness.

 

Stanley, you have a good point with the worries of the world. My family has never had alot, we do go fishing, hunting and enjoying the outdoors, but when the bottom falls out of the financial world I hope and pray that my family will still be able to gather around the campfire and talk about the things that are important and have lasting importance, a family and their relationship with each other, their maker and the good things that life has done for us.

 

 

 

 

[DesertBull]

Rembrant, do you think that part of the reason the "x-gay" people you know were unhappy could possibly be because of the "shame" of being homosexual society has placed upon them as well as having to hide the fact they were homosexuals day in day out? Just a question.

 

 

So, you believe it is a choice, that can go back and forth, and that it is influenced by public perception, acceptance within society, etc or are you saying they really did not change their preference, but are only pretending to do so, to escape the "shame"?

[stanley]

AZHUNT, I agree with the government has already stepped in the cowpie and now can't get it off their shoe and can't stop the stink. I guess that means I have a double standard....I don't want Gov. involved, but I don't want to have my rights as a father, grandfather taken away either........I want to be able to teach my kids true pricipals that are solid and will bring them happiness.

 

Stanley, you have a good point with the worries of the world. My family has never had alot, we do go fishing, hunting and enjoying the outdoors, but when the bottom falls out of the financial world I hope and pray that my family will still be able to gather around the campfire and talk about the things that are important and have lasting importance, a family and their relationship with each other, their maker and the good things that life has done for us.

 

Cheers redneck!!! Sincere agreement on that point! I definitely hope & pray the exact same thing for my family!!! Words of wisdom for sure.....

 

S.

 

[AzHunt]

Rembrant, do you think that part of the reason the "x-gay" people you know were unhappy could possibly be because of the "shame" of being homosexual society has placed upon them as well as having to hide the fact they were homosexuals day in day out? Just a question.

 

 

So, you believe it is a choice, that can go back and forth, and that it is influenced by public perception, acceptance within society, etc or are you saying they really did not change their preference, but are only pretending to do so, to escape the "shame"?

 

 

Desertbull, are you directing this question to me? I am not sure, but will answer anyway.

 

To be quite honest, I have no idea. I am not sure whether homosexuality is a taught/learned behavior or if it is "in the genes". Growing up, I saw plenty of examples of homosexual behavior on tv, but I never "learned" that I wanted that way of life. Even as a little boy, I knew that girls were the thing I was interested in. The thought to be a homosexual never ever entered my head. So I cannot really say it is one way or another.

 

You know, I think you all have very valid opinions/points/ideas. Somebody, I think it was AzHuntAtty that said he would pull his children from public school if it became part of the lesson plan to teach that homosexuality was ok. Honestly, I would probably do the same thing. I do agree with all that say homosexuality is wrong, yet I worry about the idea of not giving everybody equal protection/rights under the law. This may be a moot point since everybody is not equal under the law already. Equal opportunity employment, unless you have a contract with the government and they state what your race ratios must be is just one example of that.

 

Good discussion!

[Rembrant]

Rembrant, do you think that part of the reason the "x-gay" people you know were unhappy could possibly be because of the "shame" of being homosexual society has placed upon them as well as having to hide the fact they were homosexuals day in day out? Just a question.

 

The people I have talked to didn't bring that up at all. They're main concern was with the absence of God in their lives.

It's the practicing gays that say, "I know we were born that way, because why would anyone come out of the closet when they know what they have to face in the way of discrimination. No one would 'choose' this."

 

Lots of people believe that the killing of animals in the name of hunting is bad, evil, shameful, and unnessesary. Do you as a hunter feel shamed? Why not? Because you are strong in your convictions, and confident that you are doing nothing wrong. Right? Wouldn't it be great if the God of the universe had given us written instructions on life that backed up your convictions?

Guess what? He did!

Gay people take the heat from society too, and they do their best to make a stand. But it really is a awkward thing to have to defend something that goes totally against the natural design. Wouldn't it be great for them if the God of the universe gave them written instructions about life that backed up their convictions? Well, He gave us the instructions, but warned against men laying with men and women with women. Only thing to do now is to get our Kooky government to legislate thier validity. And that's who started it - not straight people, but the gay people. And yes thay are trying to change our society. Heck, they already have!

All because of what they prefer to do with thier genitals.

The marraige initiatives are in defense of normal healthy life as we know it. Defense against the gay agenda

Mike

 

 

[.270]

it's plum funny to read a buncha hicks tryin' to have act intelligent over a subject that has no intelligence to be found. and try to be politically correct too. Lark,

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Nailed it on the head again lark.......don't make no sense at all to even be having the discussion..................

[JHAM357]

I think most of us in the Christian realm, I guess I can't speak for all of them, but yes we are afraid. Afraid that we will now not be able to teach that marriage between a man and a woman are a gift from God because now we are discriminating. Are we discriminating? I guess we are, and that is our belief. I could care less if gays want to marry, but don't tell me in the same breath that I can't teach my kids it is a sin.

why cant we still teach that? christians have always been discriminating and closed minded to the public non believing eye. its funny though, that we as christians are closed minded but more than half the people we try to reach shut us out and what we have to say. anyways, i have my first child on the way and you better believe i will teach her what is right and wrong according to the bible. i am not afraid at all. i was not afraid in high school hearing the comments of being the starting quarterback chosing to stay abstinant. i was not afraid of debating with my teacher why we have to learn darwins theory and not creation. i was never and will never be afraid of what i will teach my children. i am not afraid of being discriminating, for christ himself was discriminated. the bible says to follow the laws of the land unless they contradict the word of god and thats what i will teach my children.

[Rembrant]

Does too! God is Good is right, this stuff has hugh ramifications.

It seems as though these gay people are harmless, silly and they ain't hurtin nobody. But they's a sneekin up on ya. In fact they are probably already gettin you and you don't even know it yet.

At my work we got "same sex domestic partner health insurance". It cost less for them to get insured than it does me - and I work there! But there ain't no opposite sex domestic health insurance. That's discrimination.

Then Janet gives the state the same thing 'cept she's smart enough not to discriminate. the opposite sex partners get it too. Gee, you think this could have anything to do with the monster state defecit, insuring male homosexuals who don't even work for the state and are living the most dangerous lifestyle known?

Time to look around a little.

Mike

[DesertBull]

You know what else doesn't make sense? Hate Crimes

 

We already have laws against murder, assault, etc, that are designed to protect everyone equally, but now, if a white guy beats up a black guy, or if a hispanic beats up a gay guy, etc etc etc, he is sentenced differently than if a white guy beats up another white guy.

 

What if a straight hispanic guy beats up a gay white guy? Which hate trumps?

[Rembrant]

What trumps what? That would be funny if it wasn’t so sadly true.

And like you say, gays don't want equal treatment, they want preferential treatment.

If my wife gets beat up and raped the criminal will get what's coming to him, let's say five to twenty. If a gay person gets raped, they want it to be a 'hate crime' so the criminal gets put away for life. If the sentences aren't good enough as they stand, let's change them. But the preferential treatment the gays want would be discriminatory against the other people in society that are victims of the same exact crime. Don't quite work does it?

There is currently a gay 'fairness' initiative tying to be ram-rodded in Flagstaff. This is what they want:

Unlawful to fire someone if they perceive they were fired for being gay.

Unlawful to not hire someone if they perceive they didn't get the job 'cause they're gay.

Unlawful do deny service to someone if it is perceived it's because they're gay. (So if a lesbian couple wants me to paint their portrait, and I choose not to because I don't agree with their lifestyle, I will be breaking the law and fined).

Churches are exempt - as far as clergy.

The church I go to has about 200 lay leaders (non-clergy). These folks lead small groups, home groups, other various ministries, and teach Sunday school to our kids. So if a trans-gendered Sunday school teacher decides to show up on Sunday to teach the third graders dressed in drag, there will be nothing the church can do about it inside the new law. Or if a gay person wants a leadership position at the church the gay thing cannot be a reason to not hire this person.

They also want unisex bathrooms all over the city to accommodate the trans-gendered people. We don’t want to discriminate against them!

Mike