Not judging, just curious

[trixie108]

Elliemom,

I remember reading this story and being fascinated by it,lol! I think that because he (or she?) took the hormones, and had her (his?) breasts removed, the state, or country or whatever declared him "legally" a man (even though he still had his female reproductive organs). So as the government sees it, it really is a "normal" marriage between a "man" and a woman. ( I think this was the point you were originally trying to get at?) I also remember seeing a lawyer say that he will be both the mother (because he carried and delivered the child) and the father (because he is considered the "husband" in the marriage) Pretty interesting stuff!

I'm not touching the homosexual marriage discussion with a ten foot pole!!!

 

[Vee]

I want to know who married the goat?

ROFL!

Traditonally Indian marriages have been arranged. The girl's horoscope was matched with that of the boy. If the stars approved, and the dowry was negotiated satisfacorily, girl was married off to boy.

Certain combinations of the stars in a girl's horoscope implied "a defect" in the horoscope - potential bad luck for her in-laws.

In ancient times, people believed marrying a girl with a defective horoscope to a tree would fool lady luck. She would go through one ceremony first with a tree and then a second with a man.

 

[LauraMax]

She would go through one ceremony first with a tree and then a second with a man.

Hmmm the tall, broad, strong, silent type huh? Sounds like the perfect husband!

 

[gidget1978]

I don't see anything wrong with gay marriages. What people do with their own lives is their choice. As long as people are happy, thats all that matters in my mind!
As far as I am concerned....there are alot worse people on the world then gays and lesbians!

 

[kryptychyck]

Yep!

I have no problems with gay marriage. I don't think it is anyone's business what someone does - with who either!

This is one of the many reasons I do not believe in organized religion. I could go off for hours on that subject alone, but I will spare you!

 

[Tamrahan]

I want to know who married the goat?

LOL

 

[carres1973]

Hmmm the tall, broad, strong, silent type huh? Sounds like the perfect husband!

I especially like the "silent" part of that...lol! Carrie

 

[ldy_solana]

hey i see it as they bleed like hetros, they feel like hetros, and pay taxes as do hetros so i say let them equally feel driven up the wall by their spouse like hetro couples LOL.

honestly i don't get it either i say ppl are ppl let them live as long as they harm none

kassia

 

[DEEDEE2]

Thank you elliemom!
I

The most common argument I've heard against it is that it affects the "sanctity" of marriage.
.

As long as an idiot like Britney Spears can get married today and have it annulled tomorrow and husbands and wives are killing each other for the insurance money and husbands and wives are cheating on each other...I don't see sanctity in a marriage just because it is between a man and a woman. I think the sanctity of the marriage comes from the character of the individuals in the marriage...straight or gay.

And if the Lord is going to punish folks for being gay then that is his call...not mine. I have a real problem with so many hetrosexual indiviuals deciding what gay people can do. We are talking love between two individuals here which is not illegal nor is being gay. My husband is really, really bad when it comes to gay rights, some of the things that has come out of his mouth...it really saddens me sometimes.

 

[lainiefig]

I just want to pop in and say that not all Christians are against gay marriage. I now go to an Episcopalian church and was confirmed there just over a year ago. At my confirmation I sat next to two friends who are a lesbian couple (and they're very commited--just had a baby a few months ago) and they were confirmed as well. Of course, not even all Episcopalians would welcome them to their church, but my church does. I am sure our priest would marry gays if it was legal here in NY (and I hope one day soon it will be).

 

[fit_fairy]

Not that I want to get into some huge biblical debate , but for us "Christians", Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecy and the NT is what we adhere too.

And it's a good thing because I can not understand a darned thing they are saying in the OT

 

[Liann]

Thanks for posting that Lainie! I wanted to write that the comment that most gays and lesbians are not religious was too general of a statement. One of my BFF's from college is a lesbian and very religious. She's just not Mormon obviously.

 

[MCunningham]

Not to add fuel to the fire, here, but to be honest, if you look at the trend over the last 30 years, it is towards people being much more PRO-gay rights (including the right to be legally married) than ANTI-gay rights.

I know that the great majority of people my generation and younger (and many of them regular church-goers, no less!) see gay marriage as no big deal and a right that should be granted.

I think in about another 20 years (although I think it's utterly pathetic that gays should have to wait that long), it will be a non-issue, despite the best efforts of the anti-gay religious establishments.

Like it or not, this argument will go the way of the Dodo, much like the debate on the legality of interracial marriage (which was also shored up with Bible quotations).

ETA: If the best argument on your side is a 2,000+-year old document (that was written by a smattering of different people, then translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated into hundreds of languages by millions of different people) to refute gay marriage becoming law, maybe you should reconsider your position. Ever hear of the game Telephone? (Also, I'm a translator by trade, and I know how screwed up translations can be if you have someone re-translate the same document repeatedly.)

MC

 

[camellia1900]

PEACE, LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING to everyone!

Tanya

 

[nancy324]

I don't care if gays want to be a couple. If they want a monogamous relationship, wonderful. But I don't believe it is a marriage, as defined religiously (yes, religiously) AND historically.

I may sound like Mr. Spock, but this is highly illogical. What does religion have to do with the law and civil rights? Different religions define marriage in different ways, as is their prerogative. I respect your religious beliefs, but see no connection between them and basic civil rights. When the law finally allows two consenting same sex adults to be married, it will NOT force a priest, rabbi or other religious officiant to marry them against their beliefs. In a free country civil rights and religious freedom can live harmoniously together. That's what freedom is all about.

 

[crazystepr]

A man should not be allowed to marry another man, nor a woman another woman. You know why??? BECAUSE JESUS CHRIST SAYS SO!! HE IS OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND TO WHOM WE WILL HAVE TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT AFTER OUR LAST BREATH.

That, my friend is what YOU believe. It's not what everyone believes. You know what?!?! Jesus is absolutely NOT my ultimate authority. No siree. It's statements and beliefs such as yours that is why the Pilgrims made the trek here to America--do be free from religious persecution and to be able to live outside of the Catholic Church's rules and beliefs. America was not founded on Jesus Christ's ultimate authority. Sorry.

My beautiful, wonderful, kind-hearted, in-love-beyond-belief-with-her-partner-of-many-years sister should be able to marry her girlfriend wherever and whenever she wants. The whole issue of gay marriage in America is an embarrassment to our country. We pride ourselves on being non-judgemental, diverse, and open and accepting to all religions and races. And then we spend our time arguing over whether or not gays can marry?!?!?! Pathetic.

 

[andtckrtoo]

Boy have I tried to stay out of this thread, but alas I cannot. Please smack me upside the head for this...

First of all, being gay is NOT a choice. If you think it's a choice, then why are there gay animals in every animal species known to man? I agree that humans COULD decide to make that choice (although knowing what most gay people go through, I cannot imagine that anyone would make THAT choice), but a fruit fly? How would a fruit fly benefit from being gay? And yes, I can back this up with evidence. So, if we establish that people are born gay, are they not then God's creation and why do we consider them immoral? I know a Rabi who will marry two gays as long as they are both Jewish, but not a Jew and a Catholic. It's not just the more modern religions who are willing to re-examine the King James version of the Bible (which is known to have been heavily edited from the original).

Second - In regards to Civil Unions as opposed to Marriage - separate but equal is NOT equal. If it were, we would still have separate water fountains for different races. Does anyone truly want to go back to that?

Oh, and I'm a Catholic woman married to a Hindu man. That makes for some interesting conversations.

 

[carres1973]

That, my friend is what YOU believe. It's not what everyone believes. You know what?!?! Jesus is absolutely NOT my ultimate authority. No siree. It's statements and beliefs such as yours that is why the Pilgrims made the trek here to America--do be free from religious persecution and to be able to live outside of the Catholic Church's rules and beliefs. America was not founded on Jesus Christ's ultimate authority. Sorry.

My beautiful, wonderful, kind-hearted, in-love-beyond-belief-with-her-partner-of-many-years sister should be able to marry her girlfriend wherever and whenever she wants. The whole issue of gay marriage in America is an embarrassment to our country. We pride ourselves on being non-judgemental, diverse, and open and accepting to all religions and races. And then we spend our time arguing over whether or not gays can marry?!?!?! Pathetic.

That was actually Church of England not the Catholic Church.

I think the OPs question about the man who delivered a baby is an easy one to answer. He is no longer considered by the state to be a woman. He changed his gender chemically (not sure about surgically) to be a man. It is the same as a man taking hormones, getting breast implants, etc to become a woman. Once he is "reassigned" as a woman, the state recognizes her as a woman. As such, the new she can now marry a man. However, she could not marry a woman!

I have to preface this next statement with the fact that I went to Catholic school for 12 years. Because of this(?), I rebel against a lot of what the Catholic Church preaches as infallible truths. How long was it preached that Mary Magdalen was a "lady of the night?" It is now widely known that the church made that up!! Do I think homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Sin is defined by religion, not by society. So, homosexuality is against most (all?) religions. Should homosexuals then be allowed to marry in a church? No, because they are committing a sin. However, I do not think it is right for them to not have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple, i.e. tax breaks, end of life decisions, etc. Maybe one of our fellow lawyers can answer that last one (Nancy?). Can't you choose who has your medical power of attorney? Cant you, in a will, leave whatever you want to whoever you want? I guess I don't like that anyone is discriminated against because of something they can't change. I firmly believe homosexuals are born that way and do not choose it later in life.

Anyhoo, just my 2 cents...or since the post was so long, maybe 5 cents.

Carrie

 

[nancy324]

lifeeverlasting, if you want to live in a country where church and state are not separated, there are a few hundred I can recommend for you. But if you value the freedoms this country offers, you must accept that your religious beliefs cannot and will not determine our laws.

 

[hiitdogs]

That was actually Church of England not the Catholic Church.

I think the OPs question about the man who delivered a baby is an easy one to answer. He is no longer considered by the state to be a woman. He changed his gender chemically (not sure about surgically) to be a man. It is the same as a man taking hormones, getting breast implants, etc to become a woman. Once he is "reassigned" as a woman, the state recognizes her as a woman. As such, the new she can now marry a man. However, she could not marry a woman!

I have to preface this next statement with the fact that I went to Catholic school for 12 years. Because of this(?), I rebel against a lot of what the Catholic Church preaches as infallible truths. How long was it preached that Mary Magdalen was a "lady of the night?" It is now widely known that the church made that up!! Do I think homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Sin is defined by religion, not by society. So, homosexuality is against most (all?) religions. Should homosexuals then be allowed to marry in a church? No, because they are committing a sin. However, I do not think it is right for them to not have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple, i.e. tax breaks, end of life decisions, etc. Maybe one of our fellow lawyers can answer that last one (Nancy?). Can't you choose who has your medical power of attorney? Cant you, in a will, leave whatever you want to whoever you want? I guess I don't like that anyone is discriminated against because of something they can't change. I firmly believe homosexuals are born that way and do not choose it later in life.

Anyhoo, just my 2 cents...or since the post was so long, maybe 5 cents.

Carrie

Homosexuality maybe / is defined by most religions as a sin. Rightfully or wrongfully so, this is not up to me to decide. I happen to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and is not immoral, for various reasons I chose to not participate in any organized religious institutions. I respect everyone's religion or faith and I would hope that they respect my beliefs.

The United States is a pluralistic society with people of various religions or no religion at all, so which religion should take precendent in applying the law?

I am a strong believer in separation of state and church. Measures like proposition 8 are dangerously close to interference of the church in matters of the state. I have no problem with religious institutions not allowing a marital ceremony in their congregation or under their religious law but allowing civil / legal marriages through the state / government has nothing to do with religious marital ceremonies or marriages.