I have a problem with the "argument" that gay marriage is an "equal" right.

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They, like heterosexuals, can marry an individual of the opposite sex.

The fact that they don't want to do that doesn't change the fact that they have the same rights as heterosexuals.

What they want is a NEW right, which would also be equal, if granted to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. (And heterosexuals would not want to make use of it.)

I have no problem with gay marriage as such.

But IF it is introduced anywhere, I want the following provisos:

1. It is a NEW right, not a civil rights issue.

2. It cannot be forced on religious communities that don't want it.

3. It MUST be introduced the same way as any new law should, by a vote in parliament, not by a decision of an activist judge.

I wish I had written your response SingrDave.  I almost agree with it 100%.  My only knit to pick is that I dont care about the practice (while you state you dont approve of it).  But like heterosexuals, I dont want to see it in Central park either.

As for your statements on Marraige and Religious Institution, I have been saying that for a long time.

Well said!  I wish they still had the Outstanding buttons for articles.

I don't approve of the practice as I think it is morally wrong.  But I still love the sinner, while shunning the sin. I hope that came across in my response.

Aww, with flattery like that you might just get me back here as a regular contributor.

I don't think it's morally wrong, merely forbidden by religious law in some religions. I know Christianity doesn't make a difference between the two. For example, Jewish law prohibits Jews from eating pork. But eating pork is not considered immoral by Judaism or Jews.

Homosexual relations are forbidden according to Jewish law, as is eating meat and milk together. I constantly eat meat and milk products together. And I don't judge others when they violate (what I believe is) G-d's law and expect them not to judge me.

The morality of it all is not for me to decide. People have to discuss this with G-d themselves.

I agree with what you are saying but I think it highlights some inconsistancies, for instance, I agree that marriage is a religious institution, but states are standing behind it as if it were a civil institution.  I wonder if that is a conflict in the separation of church and state.  If so, a possible solution is to offer a choice:  civil union or marriage. Both would carry the same legal implications but it would allow for the differences in moral conscience. 

As far as same sex benefits in the workplace, I don't think this could ever work because if elligibility is based soley on cohabitation, employers would be obligated to provide benefits for cohabitating heterosexual couples as well.  This would be a nightmare financially among other things. Leauki had a good point when suggesting we have to be sure we are comparing appples to apples.  Those who feel that same sex couples should get the same benefits as married couple are not.

I also don't think it is beneficial to raise the argument of morality when it comes to civil issues.  Obviously, we have different ideas in many areas about "right" and "wrong".  While I wouldn't be willing to argue one way or the other, what I will say is that those with Christian affiliation should be careful.  If God's plan is for union between one man and one woman than any variation is considered outside of His plan.  This includes issues that are much more rampant in the church than homosexuality like divorce, pornography, fornication, adultury and even remarriage........................you get my point.

Wisdom says that when you point your finger, there are 3 more pointing back at you.  It may be better to work on our own issues and extend to others the grace we'd like to have extended to us.

Joa

A response from my correspondent:

----------------------------------------

Thank you for your reply. I very much see your point. As you will probably see mine. I too believe the word "marriage" is religious based and therefore should not be mixed with civil liberties. I feel some major reform of "church and state" needs to but will probably never happen. After being Married, and now finally being truly loved and committed in a relationship one I finally hold as sacred. I find this all very amusing.

I have a firm belief that God is not judge and jury, and sometime in the future you might be interesed to hear how my beliefs have changed. However, I feel in my heart, the one that God guides, that I am living a much truer life of love that God intended, than I did in a marriage based in a church. But now that I understand what I believe the scripture says about becoming one with God with two people, I am no longer afforded that by a government which should no be involved in my reilgious beliefs in the first place.

The oxymoron here is the government gets to decide what I can practice and live as a gay woman, but not what you practice and live as a straight man. Also the civil union of marriage, grants you in all rights legally in one document, what will take [my partner] and I hundreds if not thousands of dollars in legal paperwork and many documents for the same rights.

Funny that you and I basically agree, even though our churches differ so greatly. My denomination ordained the first homosexual pastor, and completely supports gay marriage through our faith.

Thanks for the reply. I am always interested in what people believe. The more I ask, the more I find that most people who think they are so different truly aren't.

Leauki,

This is true and a very significant point.

Marriage is a religious and sacred institution that Scripture describes was first established in the Garden when God wedded Adam and Eve. For this reason it can never ever be anything other than between  a man and a woman joined together for the purposes of begetting children. Same sex "marriage" is an oxymoronic disordering of God's plan for man and woman to procreate and establish a family and continue the human race until the end of time. Children were meant to have a mother and a father...and two men or two women just can't fulfill these real needs.

SINGRDAVE POSTS

I agree. While it's difficult to do sometimes, we must not judge the person only the person's actions or behavior.

Homosexuality is a sin that must never be condoned or approved of.

LEAUKI POSTS:

In Christianity, specifically Catholicism, the practice of homosexuality is both morally wrong (a sin against God's law) and forbidden by the Church.

JOAN OF ARC POSTS:

Exactly.....same sex benefits in the workplace are a disaster...costing the states (taxpayers and businesses, insurance companies, etc.) that implement them.....a financial nightmare is a very good way of describing it.

JOA

Since when is the practice of homosexuality ( a sexual behavior which one chooses to engage in or not) a civil issue?

Check into the criteria for the civil rights laws that have been passed. You'll find they concerned a person's immutable characteristics like skin color, age, gender, ethnicity....one doesn't have these one day and not the next...they are all innate characteristics that cannot be changed.....

Homosexuality is a completely different issue and does not belong in with these categories.....

I think you got it completely wrong here.  They should have the right to marry the person they love.  Let's live in bizarro world where homosexuality is the norm.  How would you feel if you were told that "you have the same rights.  you can choose to marry someone of the same sex".  Does that hold any appeal to you?  Telling a homosexual person that they could marry a person who they do not love and are not attracted to is ridiculous. 

I agree that marriage can be a religous event BUT not all marriages are.  There are many who are married in civil ceremonies not religious ceremonies.  There are atheists and agnostics who marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage without any religious element.  Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other.  There is also the reality that there are many homosexuals who are also religous.  The Biblical model of marriage was one many and many wives.  We certainly don't ascribe to that philosophy in modern times. 

A generation ago the same argument was made against interracial marriages.  Now interracial marriage is a very accepted part of our society.  I just really don't see how two people of the same sex getting married affects me any more than two people of the opposite sex getting married affects me.  This is a commitment they are making to each other and it is none of my business.  They didn't get a vote on my marriage and I don't see why my opinion should have any influence on their ability to make that commitment to the person they love.  Gay marriage is not a social catastrophe.  I think anyone who wants to be in a committed, monogomous relationship, we as a socitey should offer them our encouragement and approval. 

Boudica,

Marriage has from the dawn of time always been universally defined by every nation all over the world as a union of a man and a woman. If we get off that, then it starts the slippery slope.....There are lots of loving relationships but we don't let them marry...father and daughter....three people all love one another....a man loves his dog....all of these are forms of love, but none of them are marriage worthy.

Marriage is an institution whose meaning can't be played with or something that each generation is free to redefine. A wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood... again marraige is about children and them having a mom and a dad....it's cruel to intentionally deny them this. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man... and vice versa. God's design of marriage is best.

You may think so, but it is our business...the sexual revolutionaries' propositions are that the "husband" and "wife" portion of marriage doesn't matter.  Do they?  

No...it's not the same argument....the argument then was one of race, something that is unchangeable.....Interracial marriages were still a union between a man and a woman. Again, you're confusing homosexuality (sexual behavior) with race, (an innate characteristic.) Sexual behavior is not on the same plane as race.   

Yes, it's true that in OLd Testament days polygamy was allowed...and as a result marraige had lost its sanctity, unity and indissolubility.....but Christ in the New Testament changed all that.  He elevated marriage to its original unity as between one man and one woman and sanctioned it saying that man "shall cleave to his wife, (noit wives), and that they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Sure this is true.

Again, true marriage is only a union of a man and a woman....anything else is "feel good" counterfeit.

True...and if they are and follow God's laws, they will remain chaste.

Perhaps they "should". But that's not the point. There are rights people have and rights people don't have. If you want to change those rights, that's fine.

How I would feel is unimportant. And how they feel is unimportant too. It doesn't change the fact that everyone has the same rights. That one group cannot make use of the right is another issue.

You and I both have the right to live and work in the country we were born in. Yet I cannot live and work in the US. Yes, I am angry about that. But I do realise that both our countries gave us the same rights. It's just that I would like another right: "live and work in another country".

Depends on what religion they follow. Their god might have given them any type of law regarding homosexuality.

Lula, I do not eat kosher exclusively. G-d's law says that I must. Is it immoral for me to eat a cheeseburger?

(When Jesus repealed the "old law", did he exempt homosexuality?)

[quote]Since when is the practice of homosexuality ( a sexual behavior which one chooses to engage in or not) a civil issue?[/

quote]

you're not doing your homework lula----check with your gay friends and ask them when they chose to engage in homosexual behavior.