Should gays be allowed to marry?

vonnagy · Mar 9, 2004

had to have an emergency appendectomy yesterday

whooaa, I hope you are ok! :shock: Get well soon, our thoughts are with ya mate.

oriecat · Mar 9, 2004

Get well Steve!!

Back to the subject, I just saw this linked on a blog...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1163267,00.html

As George Bush tries to make gay marriage a key election issue, a friend has emailed me one American response. I've checked all the references. It begins: "The US presidential Prayer Team is urging us to 'pray for the President' as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage.

"Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Osmer_Toby · Mar 9, 2004

hey, i'm likin' 1 and 2!! i think a concubine or two would be very helpful.

next time next time my wife and i get into an argument, i'm gonna spring # 3 on her. like to see her argue her way outta that one! :lol:

Geronimo · Mar 9, 2004

oriecat said:
Get well Steve!!

Back to the subject, I just saw this linked on a blog...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1163267,00.html

As George Bush tries to make gay marriage a key election issue, a friend has emailed me one American response. I've checked all the references. It begins: "The US presidential Prayer Team is urging us to 'pray for the President' as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage.

"Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Click to expand...

Not to go off on a tanget but there is a distinct line between the old and new test. So a lot of the items should not brought into todays discussions on various matters.

Dew · Mar 9, 2004

im guilty, i was not a virgin when i married :roll: .. but the hubby already knew that .. he preferred a more experienced broad :blulsh2:

old and new test .. the truth doesnt change .. does it? .. floatin truths? :scratch: ... that's another story

Osmer_Toby · Mar 9, 2004

old and new test .. the truth doesnt change .. does it? .. floatin truths?

voodoocat · Mar 9, 2004

Geronimo said:
oriecat said:

Get well Steve!!

Back to the subject, I just saw this linked on a blog...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1163267,00.html

As George Bush tries to make gay marriage a key election issue, a friend has emailed me one American response. I've checked all the references. It begins: "The US presidential Prayer Team is urging us to 'pray for the President' as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage.

"Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:109; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any State shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall either be slain or pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to go off on a tanget but there is a distinct line between the old and new test. So a lot of the items should not brought into todays discussions on various matters.

I think that was Orie's point when posting it. Steve mentioned Matt 5 which says Christ didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law.

Geronimo · Mar 9, 2004

Dew said:
im guilty, i was not a virgin when i married :roll: .. but the hubby already knew that .. he preferred a more experienced broad :blulsh2:

old and new test .. the truth doesnt change .. does it? .. floatin truths? :scratch: ... that's another story

The truth does not change but other things did. If you studied the bible there are a lot of things that do change between the two Test. IE the type of sacrifices to god. Where as one was physical (goats and various animals) and mental/emotional.

Dew · Mar 9, 2004

i have studied the bible ... and there are floatin truths .. so the truth does change :wink:

GimpyPoop · Mar 9, 2004

Yo,
Okay, I totally only read the first two pages of this thread so sorry if I am repeating some of the things already mentioned! (dont beat me for it!)
I think gay marriages should be allowed partially because all of the reasons provided against them don't really seem all that logical to me (personally).
I am atheist, so the whole shebang about homosexual relationships of any kind being fundamentally wrong isnt really of consequence - from where I stand at least. Also, I dont really believe that marriage is this holy, sacred union that can never ever be compromised for alternatives outside of the way it was originally meant to be practiced. I mean, here in the U.S. we are taught that marriage other than for reasons of love is to degrading whereas a great deal of Eastern cultures marry principally for status and financial reasons (and their divorce rates are significantly lower though that the reason for that could be confounded by various factors so . . . yeah).
So yesss, marriage is just this term that happens to be accompanied by certain tax breaks and rights to the other persons assets and such should they die. Why shouldnt this be extended to people who happen to love people who are not their opposite of sex? It IS flat-out discrimination in my opinion.
As for some arguments against gay marriages . . . okay well this weekend I attended my friends sons birthday party. Her husband is uh, how do say nicely . . . a bigot. But thats not what Im getting at. He was ranting and raving about the moral outrage he felt when he saw a newscast with a child holding a sign fashioned by his lesbian parents that read Let my mommies marry so we can be a family! The irony of it all, he was exclaiming how it was morally wrong to impart such horrible values upon a child, to let them believe that homosexuality is okay, even URGE their children to be homosexual . . . all while smoking a bong with his mother (the birthdays boys grandmother) and finishing a 6 pack of beer for breakfast earlier in the day. Ha ha okay yeah I just had to share that story.
Me, the Flea