Here are my thoughts.

1) It is impossible to make an argument in favor of gay marriage that cannot also be used in favor of plural marriage. And if gay marriage becomes legal, the outcry from Utah and from pockets of African immigration will become even louder.

2) If leaders in the gay community actually sat down with divorce lawyers and explored the ins and outs of marriage and divorce law, they'd be joining everyone else hoping that gay marriage never becomes legal either.

NNN -
1. If its a contract between two consenting adults its just that, If it becomes a contract between three or more then it becomes a whole different debate.

2. Leaders of the gay community are fighting to be included in marriage and divorce laws, they are fully aware of them and the protection, benefits and coverage under these laws are exactly what they are fighting for.

zhon44622 wrote: NNN -
1. If its a contract between two consenting adults its just that, If it becomes a contract between three or more then it becomes a whole different debate.

I don't see how. If there's a partnership over...I don't know, land ownership, isn't it possible to take a two-person partnership and bring a third person into that? The law doesn't recognize there being any intrinsic difference between the rights of people in a two-person partnership versus three, although pretty much everyone knows that the more people involved, the more of a pain in the ass it becomes to maintain.

2. Leaders of the gay community are fighting to be included in marriage and divorce laws, they are fully aware of them and the protection, benefits and coverage under these laws are exactly what they are fighting for.

And also the head-scratching parts that would make the average person say, "Why in the hell does this even exist?"

I was talking to someone recently who personifies this very issue. He and his wife got married. Over the next 10 years, he worked 70-80 hours a week with minimal time off. His wife never worked a day. Instead, she started using her spare time to cheat on him with pretty much everyone she came into contact with. When divorce day came, guess who had to liquidate pretty much everything he owned to give to her?

NNN-
As far as the divorce goes, thats where the prenup comes into play. I know of a gay couple who built up 3 small businesses, One ran the businesses and the other was a realtor. Because they were not afforded the same tax benefits/breaks that a married couple would have been given they had to do legal maneuvers to try and make the system work best for them. It ended up that they had to do a 90%/10% LLC to receive the same tax breaks that a married couple would have automatically received in a standard 50/50 business venture. However, when the relationship went sour the one who actually ran the businesses came out with nothing after his 10% share was applied towards the debt.

2kool4skool wrote: Does everyone worried about the sanctity of marriage also believe that anyone who's been divorced should be banned from marrying again?

I believe this.

Gay marriage should be legal, and all the same benefits made available. Just because others disagree with it doesn't mean it affects them in any way.

The sanctity of marriage is a long lost concept in my mind. I just don't understand how anybody can believe in marriage as a sacred institution any more. If I so desired, right now I could walk out to my car, drive a few hours to Las Vegas, meet a drunk chick in a bar/club/casino/gutter, walk to any of a number of McMarriage chapels, and get married. Then after a night of wedded bliss, I could go to that same chapel and have the whole thing annulled. How would letting Terry and Steve from down the street get married be more of a violation of the institution of marriage than this?

And please don't think I'm attacking marriage. I believe that marriage can be a beautiful thing. The bond between two loving adults is a miraculous thing. I just don't buy the "sanctity of marriage" argument.

I have no problem with same sex marriages. I try to make a point of not getting worked up or caring about things that do not impact me at all. I feel that if two grown adults want to make a public statement of their desire to spend the rest of their lives together, they should be able to. I also feel that they should be entitled to all of the same benefits (of the state) regardless of sexual orientation.

Now, I do support individual religion's right to deny same-sex marriages. Each religion should be able to define what a marriage is in their eyes.

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:Because religious beliefs should have no business in the policies of our governments.

By the same thinking, socialist Big Government should have no business in the policies of our churches and synagogues.

Fair, no?

I'm unaware of any government involvement in my church. Are you sure you've been going to a place of worship and not the DMV?

CenterBHSFan wrote: I agree. Leviticus is used indecently too much to try and sway opinions.

They key to the "sway opinions" argument is whether or not you believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God.

If you do then His words are what they are. At that point you can choose to obey or ignore.

If you don't believe then it's easy to ignore.

Again, I personally could care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. Just don't force me by law or edict to accept homosexuality as a "decent" alternative lifestyle.

believer wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: I agree. Leviticus is used indecently too much to try and sway opinions.

They key to the "sway opinions" argument is whether or not you believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God.
If you do then His words are what they are. At that point you can choose to obey or ignore.
If you don't believe then it's easy to ignore.
Again, I personally could care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. Just don't force me by law or edict to accept homosexuality as a "decent" alternative lifestyle.

See, I don't think it forces anybody, whether me or you, to accept anything.

I see this situation much as I do Nativity Scene debate.

Just because something is accepted by law, doesn't mean that anybody is forced to believe in it.

They deserve to be happy just as much as a man and woman who marry.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

believer wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: I agree. Leviticus is used indecently too much to try and sway opinions.

They key to the "sway opinions" argument is whether or not you believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God.
If you do then His words are what they are. At that point you can choose to obey or ignore.
If you don't believe then it's easy to ignore.
Again, I personally could care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. Just don't force me by law or edict to accept homosexuality as a "decent" alternative lifestyle.

See, I don't think it forces anybody, whether me or you, to accept anything.

I see this situation much as I do Nativity Scene debate.

Just because something is accepted by law, doesn't mean that anybody is forced to believe in it.

+1, Center, well said.

Those of you citing Leviticus...why aren't we stoning people to death for looking at women? Have you yoked unlike oxen? Are your temples the precise number of cubits long?

pmoney25 wrote: Can non Christians be married? If only God can recognize marriage, if you dont believe you can't be married?

Did anyone ever answer this question?

They should be entitled to "civil unions" that provide for the legal rights they seek., As to "marriage", I think not, as that upsets our bigoted religious friends who rarely practice "love thy neighbor" and go out of their way to infect the rights of others . Never get in the way of a "good christian", lol

FatHobbit wrote:

pmoney25 wrote: Can non Christians be married? If only God can recognize marriage, if you dont believe you can't be married?

Did anyone ever answer this question?

Since government is in the marriage business via licensure and whatnot, it isn't strictly a religious thing.

I just feel that if people can be intelligent enough to lead a "good" life, work hard, and strive to be the best that they can be in the way that they feel best, then I don't care if they're married or not.

People need to realize that everything about our free societies are fundamentally saturated with differences. It's not easy and there are some things I have a tough time with myself.
But the focus should be on what WE continue to do with our own lives, despite the choices somebody else makes.

IMO, No...

As a conservative Christian I believe homosexuality to be a sin and immoral (this is even with a couple homosexuals in my family).

However, as a Christian I also believe in the fact that all sin is the same in God's eyes and I'm not supposed to treat ANYONE different due to who they are or what they do.

I don't think we should be treating homosexuals different in the eyes of our tax codes, hospital visits, medical insurance dependencies, etc. So yes, I believe homosexuals should be aloud to have "civil unions" or civil marriages done by a church that is "ok" with it or by a judge in a civil ceremony.

I, however, do believe that there should be a provision stating that NO church can be sued for "discrimination" if they refuse to do a homosexual wedding ceremony.

jmog wrote: I, however, do believe that there should be a provision stating that NO church can be sued for "discrimination" if they refuse to do a homosexual wedding ceremony.

Good point, and I agree.

Ytowngirlinfla wrote: I don't get why anyone cares if gay people marry. If they are happy why not? Everyone is entitled to be happy.

Seriously....When can we start worrying about issues that matter?

This country wastes far too much time and energy on debating gay marriage and abortion.

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:Have you yoked unlike oxen?

Bro, I yoke unlike oxen on the daily.

I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.

derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.

Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?

NNN wrote:

derek bomar wrote: I just don't see how people could be against it. It has no impact on your life at all other than maybe providing some income to the government in the form of taxes...I just don't get the hypocrisy some people have when it comes to wanting the government to have nothing to do with their lives, but have no problem telling other people how they should behave. Live and let live man.

Should marriage to multiple spouses be allowed as well?

Different issue entirely, as this can have the connotation of multiple partners being forced into a situation (and as far as the history of it in the United States is concerned, it seems religious extremism is in the forefront of the known examples), such as the girls in the polygamist sect of Mormons.