Also, I'm very much in favor of this. Our focus should not be on allowing gay people to get married. It should be on recognizing that marriage means different things to different people. The government should provide a legal status for a union between two individuals, then shut the hell up and let the individuals decide what that means for them on every other NON-LEGAL matter. This whole debate stems from current law and many conservative people confusing the legal institute of marriage with the religious or cultural institute of marriage. So to fix this, you scrap the current laws, and you write laws for a union between two individuals that gives them together legal status as one individual (shared income, shared taxes, shared property, etc). You call it a "civil union law" not a "marriage law". Then you leave it at that, and let the churches and religions decide how they want to handle heterosexual and homosexual relationships. (This also means you can't make a law that incriminates a church organization for refusing to perform or recognize a certain type of marriage.) This is supported both by our Bill of Rights and by the Bible.

Mother Theresa did not "rise above humanity." In fact she was decidedly inhuman, never once actually providing real aid. With all the donation money never built a real hospital, never tried to improve her hospices. Just "comforted" people and told them to embrace suffering because it would bring them "closer to God." Oh, and then before she died she wrote that she actually gave up on her faith a long time ago. She was an absolutely horrific person and the worst possible example anyone can use for "rising above humanity."

the missionary position

it actually does directly say that a man should not lie with another man as with a women and says its detestable. But like with most things in Leviticus, this has largely to do with the Israelites not taking on the customs of the nations(people groups) they are conquering.

The same list of sins includes not screwing or talking to a woman on her period, and also condones slavery and explains which of his slaves a good man is permitted to defile, punish, or kill. My point still applies that, the people who wrote that part of the bible that was later canonized by other men is believed by individuals by choice. I think people duck out of their responsibilities for their beliefs by pointing at a book and saying "It's in there, so it's true." Other Christians do not believe that this (very late) addition to the Bible pertains to their beliefs, so it's a false appeal to even say that it's a religious claim. Religion is just an excuse some people use to validate something they want to believe.

yeah... that was my point. that a LOT of the old testament laws are SPECIFICALLY for the Israelites of that time, and most of them are pertaining to not taking up practices of other people groups. it really has NO bearing on what we should or should not be doing in society today. But it IS in there, so lots of people will go "OH! OH!!! You see! Its right THERE!!!"

As long as the same laws apply to everyone, this is fine. This is why the people who don't support gay marriage, but support civil unions, are almost as destructive as the people who are against it altogether. Segregation is bad, m'kay?

Speaking of racist hicks, did you guys see the news about West Virginia (93% white) almost electing a felon in their democratic primary? I think I remember another Democrat running this year, let me remember his name... oh yeah, Barack Obama! Oh, wait, never mind; I forgot that he was black.

When I was at my car dealership they had fox news on with this story, i luled

a gay person touched me am i gay now

I lulled

Dude you are like frickin gambit with that card. FFFFSHAAAP!

Well, the good news is that in the next 30-40 years, a lot of those backwards, ignorant, hateful humanoid slugs are going to die off simply due to aging, freeing up resources and swinging the country towards the left. So that'll be good.

-It'll solve all our social security problems, for one. It'll get rough before the end, though.

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nMANMIe0ZZI

I know right! wont it be great when all those people we disagree with just DIE! THATS progress right there!

You can't fix stupid.

touche`

What about a bright red hooded sweatshirt during the middle of a 95+ degree day? We get a lot of that here (and not just black people)? Its confusing and just begs suspicion.

Gang colors is a horse of a different color.

I personally am looking forward to living in a country where people can marry animals, inanimate objects, underage teens, etc. It is a slippery slope and I'll be going "weeee" the whole way down.

Dude, you have sex with children.

I on the other hand prefer just inanimate objects

god i hope thats not you

you sir are my hero!

oh... he went there.

o_O

Well, at least it's not bad as the cazor/c3po image.

seems worse to me.

[quote=Rand Paul]Call me cynical, but I wasn't sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.[/quote]

We have a winner.

because animals, inanimate objects, underage teens, etc. are legally capable of consenting to a marriage contract.

is that for me or for pat robertson

Marry bacon

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrEWmjKh_68

If you marry bacon and it develops alzheimer's, Pat Robertson says you can divorce it (just search youtube).

To those of you claiming that homosexuality is only mentioned as a sin in the Old Testament: That is not true at all.

But, the question here is really not about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, biblically, hence my previous stated position. Homosexuality's "sinness" should have nothing to do with US law.

Also, I especially like the 1st Corinthians passage, because it puts the sin into perspective. It basically says "Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but it is a sin just like many other sins, and you should not condemn homosexuals any more than you condemn yourselves for your own sin, because Jesus has washed you clean, just as he has (or is capable of) washing clean homosexuals."

Imagine if Christians went around demonstrating the same hatred and fear towards "greedy" people. Or "revilers" (this is an AWESOME example. Think of all the Christian people you know, or all the Christian movements you've heard of that condemn a movie for spotlighting homosexuality. Now think of how many movies which have foul language that those same people have watched without batting an eye).

If it's easier I would support solving this issue the other way...

Dissolve the legal concept 'Marriage'. State and Federal governments treat everyone as individuals, no tax benefits ect. I seriously don't think society would fall apart.

Word, Sarn. I'm starting to worry about the fact that you're making sense lately.

Because they don't disagree with it. It's not "icky" and "gross." The argument of sin from the bible is nothing more than an appeal to authority to justify bigoted attitudes and behaviors.

TRISCUIT, you have to remember there's more to marriage than just tax benefits. Legal standing is an important issue. From things like property ownership to custody for children, marriage laws simplify and set standards for these issues. So doing away with them entirely is not the solution.



I get into your mind... Just like I did with Farley.

I'm really not seeing a problem. For significant investments you can put two names on the title to the property in question. I don't see how custody would change, you would still be legally obligated to provide for children you create and there are procedure in place for adoption. I'm sure it would create some challenges, but honestly I don't think people are ready to give it serious thought. This is the way it's been for thousands of years!

Edit: That picture is a little disturbing.

Triscuit, what's the motivation for dissolving marriage (or civil partnership) as a legal concept? Because it sounds suspiciously like "you can't get penile cancer if you don't have a penis!" logic.