gay marriage?

[chris]

a co-worker and i flew into atlanta earlier this spring. we are fortunate to do a lot of traveling. after we touched down, we walked over to the baggage claim. we waited for what seemed like an eternity for our bags to be shot through the portal. right behind my friend...three feet maximum, maybe...were two newlyweds making out. not just kissing...but slobbering all over each other. i cannot speak for everyone, but i was slightly nauseated. one thing i may not have mentioned earlier that stood these newlyweds apart from most others i have seen: they both had a penis.

i don't realy care for seeing two hombres smooching in public. but in the same breath, a man and a woman shouldn't be publicly petting each other either. get together and do your thing in private, i say. whatever happens behind closed doors is no one else's business. ah, the sanctity of marriage.

this got me thinking about the definition of marriage. the american heritage dictionary says marriage is "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". okay. i can accept that, i guess.

but can i accept that? we all know that most marriages involve two happy, caring people. but what do people who speak of the sanctity of marriage think about the drunken husband who comes home and beats his wife? or celebrities - brittany spears comes to mind - who get married every six months just for the publicity? or how about when one or both parties are having outside affairs? these occurances go on every day without anyone saying a word. i swear, just 50 years ago it was considered taboo for a black and white person to get married. is it really necessary for public approval for something...so...private all of a sudden? i think people that are really that concerned about the sanctity of marriage should be trying to ban divorce...not trying to ban gay marriage.

when has it become anyone else's business what happens behind closed doors, anyway? two consenting adults who are not hurting anyone and breaking no laws should be allowed to do as they please. if one adult male wants to proclaim his eternal love for another adult male...okay, god bless you, man. just close the blinds. any two people, within the strict confines of the species...should be allowed to get married.

now, i am not suggesting that if you have never had a lover of the same gender, you should run out and try it on for size tomorrow. but i am saying...that if a friend...or relative just happens to be gay...and they have a partner that truly makes them happy...you should be happy for them. the details of a straight person's love life are probably not your business now. why should a gay person's love life be? and if you do make it your business...what does that...really...say about you?

there might be some who say gay marriage is bad because the bible tells them it is. yes, religion. the omnipresent elephant in the room. well...belonging to the first church of nothing in particular...i ask quite sincerely...would a gay man or woman...or couple...be welcome in a church where jesus himself was preaching? to those that do pay attention to christ's teachings...you know deep down the answer to that would be...unequivocally...yes.

[mr h atom]

i could care less what any religion has to say about gay marriage: look at the great job they've done with fidelity so far...

it's supposed to be a free country..all religious points of view are supposed to be given the same weight of law...why should the conservative nattering nabobs of negativism get the right to intepret the bible ?
and the law..?!
they're the same kooks who said blacks & whites couldn't marry...that blacks were 1/2..0r 3.4 of a human being...christian basterd sused to hang 'em from trees...just a few years ago, they dragged some poor guy behind their truck in texas: just 'cause he was black.

all of germany was protestant: it wasn't satan worshippers who rounded up and killed 10-20 million people...it was christians.

we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...doesn't say anything about just white, neo-fascist christians, does it ?

moreover...i think if a gay american wants to enlist and fight for freedom..he or she should be able to. i've seen enough to know that the straight, christian world hasn't exactly been honest and kosher in it's dealings; rape and torture -- the new christian philosophy ?...

i don't have any gay memebers (as far as i know, at least) of my rather exended family..but, i've worked with quite a few proud, gay americans..and all have been true, honest, hard working, tax-paying people.

marrige is NOT owned by any church..it is a legal concept...and a such, it ought to be available, for all the reasons chris mentioned, to any tax-paying, red, white & blue american.

it sickens me that the very same folks crying and whining endlessly about the democrats shoving big-brother gov't down everyones throats are the very same fiends who, by and large, are the only group that has actively pursued a politcal-religious agenda that exlcudes freedom for certain american citizens based solely and only on thier interpretation of the bible.

sorry for the rant...

[Mike]

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Period. If you go changing the definition of that word, then why should not all words be targeted for change. A box, it is square has four sides, a top and a bottom. Why change it to suit the needs of a trapziod? A painting I would think is something that an artists had painted, but why not just call reproduction mass produced prints, paintings? If same sex people want to have a union, sure go ahead but the term marriage is already taken. Be creative and come up with something. But then that is the whole point isn't it. They (meaning the activist side), want all the attention attached to the controversy (hence political clout) of hijacking the term marriage.

[mr h atom]

websters:
marriage: 1) the state of being married, 2) a wedding 3) of married 3) a close union.


religiously, marriage has been often, but not always, been defined as mike states: but that is a religious definition, not a legal one. and we are talking about legalities under the law, not what an individual church (or its ardent parishoners) desires.

the constitution of the united states makes no such territorial claim. moreover, it significantly questions the ability of any one religion to define any issue over the objections of another.

therefore, if even one church (and there are many more than one church), which is recognized as an actual religious organization/institution, views any issue in a significantly differing manner, the law, constitutionally, is supposed to reflect that diversity.

considering the sorry state of actually teaching the basics of the bible that, imho, most churchs practise...there should, in the 21st century, be no significant reason why individual churches, who wish to interpret the bible in their own way, should be legally barred from doing so.
moreover: if the state, a (supposedly - constitutionally) irreligious institution, engages in any activities, even marriage, they should remain neutral and impartial.

i don't think any one is trying to steal the word 'marriage': sorry that your view on 'marriage' as an intitution is so weak.

i, on the other hand, am quite significantly secure in my heterosexuality, the state of my marriage, and comfortable with the teachings of my faith, that allowing two legally consenting adults the priviledge of doing with thier own lives what they wish without my ( or my taxpayer funded state) intereference: to define thier own existence, so they may engage in lawful legal contracts that should be recognized BY THE STATE, is going to do me absolutely no harm whatsoever.

trying to redefine the argument with that lame ' a box is a box' shite is about a lame as the once used ' a black can't marry a white' argument : it is all backwards thinking...no, i take that back: it is NOT thinking; it's parroting the company line..there are other, taxpaying, honest, hard-working, patriotic citizens of both (all) our countries that that sort of excuse making should be beyond even bringing up...

next thing you know, someone'll start with the : 'whats next..do you sanctify a marriage between a man and a goat ?' line...aside from being pure bollux, i'm sure there's more than a few farmers in montana that's quarrel with that one...

you either believe in getting the 'state' out of our lives, or you believe in 'state' control of our lives: this is a defining issue.

[Mike]

"What people do behind close door is their business" is too general. As long as nobody is getting hurt, example and imprisoned sex slave, and as long as it is legal, example a meth factory.

[mr h atom]

but, mike: we are not talking illegal activies...

you're better than that...c'mon

we're talking inalienble rights

for better or for worse, that includes legal definitions...and HOW THEY GOT TO BE THAT WAY.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that these sort of issues are more about churches attempting to hold on to and extend thier control over the masses than enlightening gods word.
if this sort of innappropriate interpetation is allowed, by us, the thinking masses, to continue to be the sole answer to serious questions of reality: how can the churches hold relevance into the future ?
we all have to learn from reality and grow...even the church.

the world is not flat...
the sun does not revolve around us...
we've been here a bit more than 3000 years...
and there 300 churches within 5 miles of my house: each with a significant point of view; some correct..some maybe a bit specious ( i got fred phelps an hour away, folks: google it, if you must)...most respresent completely different factions (protestant vs. catholic, anyone) that do not agree on but the most basic tenets...

in creating LAWS for all citizens, we must...have to, be color blind as often a we can: the LAW of the state must reflect the diversity of all, not just the one in power, or the one you believe in

[mr h atom]

hey...!
laura bush, wife of the ex-president..has come out (erm...) on larry king (last night) with an enlightened view on both abortion rights and...

ta-da

gay marriage

[chris]

Imprisoned sex slaves? Meth lab? I'd actually prefer we stay on topic.

I don't understand why people are so scared of gay people marrying. It really isn't so threatening. I happen to know a few. They are decent law abiding people. People I am glad to have over in my house. It isn't a virus I can catch if we share the same glass. If you really find a same sex couple so offensive, don't marry a gay person. But that's where your involvement ends.

[mr h atom]

...I'M ACTUALLY KINDA WARMIMG UP TO THE IMPRISONED SEX SLAVE THING

...wonder if there's something mike isn't sharing ?

[james1985]

I don't understand why people are so scared of gay people marrying. It really isn't so threatening. I happen to know a few. They are decent law abiding people. People I am glad to have over in my house. It isn't a virus I can catch if we share the same glass. If you really find a same sex couple so offensive, don't marry a gay person. But that's where your involvement ends.

I couldn't agree more. This is one issue I really, really care about. Who says marriage is between a man and a woman, period? Not so long ago marriage was only acceptable between a man and a woman of the same race, right?

I don't get the fear either. Straight white men have done more to ruin marriages and family life than gay men and women have ever done. It's not like marriage is the institution these people think it is anyway. There's no rational argument against gay marriage.

In the absence of rational argument, the reason must be that people are worried about little Johnny turning into Adam Lambert. Which rests on the assumption that it's not normal or good to be gay. Which is wrong. It's based on the point of view that, you know, the gays can have their rights and all, but I wouldn't want my kid to be one.