Eric

I posted something about this on my other site, but felt it was more appropriate here.

In 2000, California voters decided by 61 percent to 39 percent to prevent the state from recognizing same sex marriages. See:

California Proposition 22 (2000) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court struck Prop 22 down as unconstitutional, which allowed same sex marriage.

The decision is before voters once more, this time as Prop 8. The vote is now about whether to modify the California constitution to classify marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If voters vote yes to modify the California constitution, the California Supreme Court won't be able to do anything about that, since they can't declare the constitution unconstitutional.

I have no problem with something in the nature of a civil union between consenting same sex domestic partners who desire that arrangement for legal or insurance reasons. I live next to San Francisco and have gay friends. But in my opinion, the holy bond of matrimony should strictly remain between a man and a woman.

I'm interested in the thoughts of others on this from both a Christian and secular perspective.

__________________

Lewz

im voting no, legally i think its unfair. ideally id sa y rid marriage from the system, everyoneapplies for a civil union liscense with equal benefits and leave marriage where it belongs, in the churches.

__________________

Raven

What's really at issue here are the rights that in many cases are restricted only to married people. Hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits, and taxation differences are just some of the things that straight married couples can expect to have, that gay couples are either denied completely or can only get after jumping through a lot more hoops. When a person who has shared their life with someone for 20 years is denied access to a hospital room because they aren't married, that's wrong and it's not fair.

No one is saying that every church must be made to accept and perform gay marriages. If a church wants to not recognize gay marriage, then great, let that church not recognize it. The state and federal government however has no right to impose restrictions based on the sex of the parties involved.

Most gay people I know could not care less if _insert church name here_ viewed their marriage as "legitimate", they just want to be able to conduct business the same as everyone else.

__________________

Eric

You are listening to rhetoric. Those things, insurance, and other legal rights can be handled with civil unions, or something short of marriage.

__________________

Raven

Call it rhetoric if you want, but it's the truth. There is no reason why the church should be allowed a monopoly on the word marriage.

__________________

Eric

Are you also good with teaching kids in grade school that same sex marriage is a viable alternate to marriage between a man and a woman? The MA courts have said parents have no right to object to that being taught.

Decision to teach kids to be 'gay' allowed to stand

I don't think gay people have the right to teach homosexuality to my children.

__________________

Raven

You're grasping at straws here... that has absolutely nothing to do with the question "should gays be allowed to marry", but since you asked, I am not against teaching sex education to children. Not in Kindergarten mind you, but at least by the time the kids are 10 - 12. They are having sex already - what would you prefer, them to go at it without protection and get stuck with a kid or a disease, or know how to protect themselves and others?

Anyway...yeah. Gay marriage. We can start another thread for sex ed in schools

__________________

Mordenkainaen

Rather than just repeating my reply to this topic as mentioned on EQ2Flames, I'll summarize, though the Flame's thread is a good read as well.

A union between two people (whatever its called) is pretty much a contract. The government should not be prohibiting people from entering into contracts who otherwise have the legal ability to do so. 'Nuff said.

Getting back to the "holiness" of marriage... I do see the problem many religious people have with calling gay marriage "marriage". To them, its a ceremony that takes place in a church and has certain meanings... to these people, that ceremony marks the start of their marriage... not so much the government granting them a marriage lisence, but God's recognition of their commitment. Its not like government should be meddling with religious stuff anyways.

Personally, I'd be fine to not call it a marriage, but something else, like a civil union. Let those who have special religious meanings attached to the word "marriage" have their marriage. However, all the legal rights and responsibilities still need to be identical. A problem with Prop. 8 is that, if passed, might kill any attempt at a non-marriage civil union.

Oh, and btw - you can't teach someone to be gay.

Out of curiosity... Eric/LFG, you made some rather "interesting" comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia and beastiality on that EQ2Flames sister thread. Comparisons, I have to say, are complete crap. Care to explain what right you have to equate us with criminals?

Lewz

Lol ya comeon Eric you can't teach anyone to be gay and they aren't teaching them to be gay. There teaching them about homosexuality, just lke they teach about heterosexuality, masturbation, insemination, and other sex related topics. Stop the sensational bull****, thats on par with the "Obama wants to teach children about sex before they learn to read" ad.

__________________

Eric

I honestly have nothing against gay people, I have a ton of gay friends. I don't consider any of them to be criminals in any way. They are mostly very loving people. My comments on the other site were rhetorical and for the purpose of argument.

__________________