Well now that the election is over...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All the principles we were founded on are directly tied to Christianity.

Yet you cannot read a bible, pray, or hold any religious activities in schools. So much for our christian foundation.

We aren't denying gays anything, unless you change the definition of marriage to include them.

All issues that are brought up, be it inheritance, hospital visits, etc, as reasons to change marriage can all be addressed RIGHT NOW through current legal devices like wills, living wills, and power of attorney.

What about the more than 1,100+ federal benefits offered to straight married couples? What about recognition? What about equality? Not all benefits can be address through legal devices. And why should gay couples have to pay someone to get these services when straight couples get them by just getting married. So gay couples have to pay attorneys for things that straight couples get for free. Where is the fairness and equality in that?

Some plain talk regarding Christians: the biggest single difference between secular voters and Christians is a simple one, but a huge one, and not likely to be reconciled. Christians fear Gods' wrath. We know that if we deny God or turn against Him, judgement is not far behind. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

As a christian I completely understand that Gods wrath is tempered by grace. In this day of grace, God doesn't punish the masses for the sin of a single person, or group. He deals with the person directly. Each christian has to stand before God and account for HIS life, not the life of the gay couple next door. We don't live in the old testiment, so that kind of fear is ignorance at its best. There is no scripture in the bible that supports forcing Gods word on anyone. But it does say "if they don't receive you, shake the dust from your feet and keep going." Any other words, walk away, and let God deal with them as he so desires. Its says nothing about legislated God's word on everyone, and it certain doesn't say discriminate if they don't believe in me. Who says gays are against God? Where does the word homosexual or gay appear in the bible? As a christian I am at a loss trying to understand where my fellow christians are coming from. What ever happen to love coverth all sin? There is no scripture in the New Testament(which is the dispensation we currently live in, not the Old Testament) which prescribes mass punishment for the sins of a few. This is a false arguement.

Some are thinking right now that THIS is the argument behind the new definition of seperation of Church and State, basically that me and like-minded folks should not be allowed to encode our beliefs of right and wrong into gov't. What that definition does is deny my right of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion

So we find ourselves at an impasse. You want to be able to legislate religion on those who don't believe in what you do, yet you don't mind squelching their rights and freedoms to live as they please to save your rights. What ever happen to PERSONAL responsibility? Now my christian brothers and sister think it is up to them to change everyone into a christian, and if you don't do it willingly, then we will vote to legislate it, and force it on you. That is not what God has commanded us to do. Why do some of us think that God cannot handle himself, or knows how to deal with this? Why do we think we have to judge and punish for God? The freedom of religion is a personal right, not your freedom to force others to believe as you do.

[piece-it pete]

Yet you cannot read a bible, pray, or hold any religious activities in schools. So much for our christian foundation.

Oh yes you can!

As long as it's not required by the school. THIS is the result of our Christian foundation. Wouldn't happen in Islamic cultures!

What about the more than 1,100+ federal benefits offered to straight married couples? What about recognition? What about equality? Not all benefits can be address through legal devices. And why should gay couples have to pay someone to get these services when straight couples get them by just getting married. So gay couples have to pay attorneys for things that straight couples get for free. Where is the fairness and equality in that?

Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?

As a christian I completely understand that Gods wrath is tempered by grace. In this day of grace, God doesn't punish the masses for the sin of a single person, or group. He deals with the person directly. Each christian has to stand before God and account for HIS life, not the life of the gay couple next door. We don't live in the old testiment, so that kind of fear is ignorance at its best. There is no scripture in the bible that supports forcing Gods word on anyone. But it does say "if they don't receive you, shake the dust from your feet and keep going." Any other words, walk away, and let God deal with them as he so desires. Its says nothing about legislated God's word on everyone, and it certain doesn't say discriminate if they don't believe in me. Who says gays are against God? Where does the word homosexual or gay appear in the bible? As a christian I am at a loss trying to understand where my fellow christians are coming from. What ever happen to love coverth all sin? There is no scripture in the New Testament(which is the dispensation we currently live in, not the Old Testament) which prescribes mass punishment for the sins of a few. This is a false arguement.

So you're saying, that according to the New Testament, Gods' grace would be a good reason to vote FOR condoning sin. This ISN'T walking away. Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more".

God also said "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom".

The ten comandments are from the Old Testament. It starts out by saying, "In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was God". I didn't hear Jesus refute this statement.

Marriage is still a Sacrement, is it not?

God will judge nations, check out Revelations. Even if not, since this is a democracy, the gov't is a reflection of the people. But you're right to a degree, God will judge every individual. Will He say, "Thanks for approving of gay "marriage"? Or will He say, "Didn't I tell you, ' ...if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea'"?

Because the single, most important reason for marriage in the first place was - protecting and raising children. It's bad enough divorce is through the roof, and many kids are raised outside of a family - let's hold up same sex couples as a good example. Let them adopt kids, they'll have a normal, healthy upbringing.

Look at the studies. There is no question. This is a reason that goes beyond religion and applies to everyone.

Of course we live in Grace, else we have no hope.

So we find ourselves at an impasse. You want to be able to legislate religion on those who don't believe in what you do, yet you don't mind squelching their rights and freedoms to live as they please to save your rights. What ever happen to PERSONAL responsibility? Now my christian brothers and sister think it is up to them to change everyone into a christian, and if you don't do it willingly, then we will vote to legislate it, and force it on you. That is not what God has commanded us to do. Why do some of us think that God cannot handle himself, or knows how to deal with this? Why do we think we have to judge and punish for God? The freedom of religion is a personal right, not your freedom to force others to believe as you do.

My freedom of both religion and freedom of speech allows me to vote my concience. If my concience leads me to vote one way or the other, and enough fellow citizens agree, that becomes law.

That is democracy. Anything else is tyranny.

Can't legislate morality? I disagree - your whole argument is that it isn't right, or fair, to deprive gays of their "rights". So it's really my version of morality or yours.

Besides, our entire criminal code is legislated morality.

If I believe that changing the definition of marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, isn't it my personal responsibility to say so, and vote accordingly?

Also, I'm not forcing anyone to become a Christian. Jesus said "You will always be a little flock". How can that be, if everyone's a Christian? How can I justify forcing everyone to become one when God Himself said it's not possible?

He also said "Vengence is mine". It's not up to me! I'm not advocating the execution of gays, I'm drawing the line as I see it. Big difference.


Pete

[Chris]

Having to pay a little is a bad reason to redefine marriage.

And I will repeat that these things don't apply to singles, either. Should we redefine marriage to include them?

Hey Pete, I don't think many here want to redefine marriage. I don't even think that most homosexuals want that - well, some might, only because it would prove to them that their relationships are legitimate in the eyes of their peers. I think they're mainly fighting for their rights as human beings. Straight couples receive certain benefits and rewards that gay couples don't because they're not allowed to marry. Civil Unions that afforded them these benefits and rewards would likely suffice. I think that's all anyone here is arguing. Let's not redefine marriage, let's just create a way for gay couples to receive the same benefits without undermining marriage (in some peoples' eyes). The fact that you've already said you'd tolerate some type of civil union tells us that you're in agreement with us.

We're not comparing gay singles to straight singles. We're comparing married couples to gay couples - a direct comparison of two people who have an intimate relationship and are committed to eachother.

Folks, if you drop the term "marriage" and name it something else, I think everyone can be happy. Unfortunately, the way Mass. and Calif. handled things recently, it enraged everyone who wanted to "protect marriage" and seriously damaged any progress that had been made. We need some middle ground though. It's obvious that this is going to get worse before it gets better.