MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding acceptance based on whether its a male or female couple...I think that most people who are against homosexuality in general find lesbian couples just as offensive as gay male couples, probably even more so in some cases.

I think the "acceptence" only comes when its two "hot babes" going it at and the horny males Salome mentioned feel safe in knowing they (the women) aren't really gay, they're just "experimenting" :rolleyes:
 
Okay I've heard this in school and wanted to know if anyone had an article on it. But I heard something like it's not legal in the states to fire someone for being gay? Is this true? Whats going on?
 
RavenStar said:
Okay I've heard this in school and wanted to know if anyone had an article on it. But I heard something like it's not legal in the states to fire someone for being gay? Is this true? Whats going on?

I think you meant illegal, right? I read this last week, but haven't heard anything else about it. But I haven't watched much news in the past week or so, so I don't know how the story has developed.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=25384
 
I thiknI meant legal actually. Gods I fail to make sense to myself most of the time. I dont know how I even manage to say hello to someone.
 
Bono's American Wife said:
I think the "acceptence" only comes when its two "hot babes" going it at and the horny males Salome mentioned feel safe in knowing they (the women) aren't really gay, they're just "experimenting" :rolleyes:

The guys my boyfriend lives with are into "lesbians", but it's only b/c they're so dense that their dicks have them convinced those "hot babes" in their porno flicks really are lesbians. I doubt any of them have ever met a lesbian. They see these big boobed blonde chicks who are paid to hump each other and assume that since the porno is labelled "hott lesbian action", these sluts are real lesbians and then they assume all lesbians are hot. Guys :rolleyes:

(PS. I'm not saying lesbians can't be hot, I think you get the picture)
 
I was reminded of something this morning as I was replying to another thread.

Lately I've been seeing this bumpersticker on cars recently where it reads: "MARRIAGE = GOD +" then it has a stick figure symbol of a man "+" then it has a stick figure of a woman "+" then it has a stick figure of a child.

I'm really tempted to go and scratch out the symbols and just write the word "love", but I've outgrown my vandalism days. Have you all seen these? It angers me, but then again so do most bumperstickers.


On another note I was speaking to a friend of mine this weekend who is gay and is a die hard Republican and I asked him about his views on this issue. I was a extremely shocked by his response, he was opposed to gay marriage based purely on an economic view. He believes gay marriage would prove to be bad for the economy. I almost spit out my beer I was in so much shock, but he's man that votes and thinks with his wallet. I told him that I thought the influx of elaborate receptions and designers tuxes alone would give a spike to the economy.
 
if alcohol was involved, and my dumber than dog shit friends, i think i'd revert to my vandalism days and attack a bumper sticker like that too. whenever i see this marriage is about the 2 people + god, it always makes me think of a menage a trois.

:huh:
 
Angela Harlem said:
if alcohol was involved, and my dumber than dog shit friends, i think i'd revert to my vandalism days and attack a bumper sticker like that too. whenever i see this marriage is about the 2 people + god, it always makes me think of a menage a trois.

:huh:

Don't forget about the child because we all know that every marriage should spawn an offspring.
 
this reminds me of a wedding i went to about 3 years ago. 2 friends of my husband got married very young. she was only i think 20 at the time, and they were both devout and from like minded families. their ceremony went for about an hour and the first thing the minister/priest/whatever he was said was we were there to watch them join in joly matrimony so they could do god's will and make babies. i was stunned, but he kept it up. for an hour. talking about them going forth and multiplying. i nudged my husband about halfway through and asked if he (priest type guy) was going to lock them in the ante room thing out the back to get the business started. it was beyond a joke really.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Lately I've been seeing this bumpersticker on cars recently where it reads: "MARRIAGE = GOD +" then it has a stick figure symbol of a man "+" then it has a stick figure of a woman "+" then it has a stick figure of a child.


I should leave a note on that dimwit's car asking about my marriage, since I got married and still had no intention of ever having children.

I also know a lesbian couple with three kids.
 
I'm reminded of the importance of secular education, considering we have "adults" constructing arguments with gigantic holes in logic. What is even more sad, ultimately, is such logic holes are perpetuated by religions and politicians, who are, theoretically, supposed to be "smarter" than that.

Religion does nothing but perpetuate ignorance.

Melon
 
No. "Religion", as you call it, perpetuates a purpose for life and if man wants to stray from his nature than it's a "religious" authority's position to call them upon it.

I don't think gay marriage is right. Homosexuality is an aberration.

However, I do happen to agree with the thought that if Gay Marriage does not harm anyone (and it doesn't) then for harmony's sake let them carry it on.

It's like abortion, if you don't like it then don't get one.
 
Part of the problem is religious institutions keep pushing the idea that gay marriage is wrong and that indeed homosexuality is an aberration. Maybe I'm simplifying things too much, but what has this ideal got to do with love and forgiveness and acceptance and everything else which is suposed to be the basic foundations of all or most religions? Religion has the power to shape people's views like nothing else can. Gay marriage and homosexuality does nothing to those which it doesn't affect, yet the all powerful religions of the world are enforcing this unfounded belief that it does. By it's nature, it is perpetuating non acceptance and ignorance.
 
My minister wrote a letter to our congregation announcing that she was a lesbian on April 2. She is the best minister I have had in my life. I hope she is not sent away from us by the Church Council. :sad:
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
No. "Religion", as you call it, perpetuates a purpose for life and if man wants to stray from his nature than it's a "religious" authority's position to call them upon it.

I don't think gay marriage is right. Homosexuality is an aberration.

In spite of all scientific and logical evidence to the contrary, you hold the latter belief set for no other reason than that's what you've been told unquestioningly. You've merely proved my point with religion.

However, I do happen to agree with the thought that if Gay Marriage does not harm anyone (and it doesn't) then for harmony's sake let them carry it on.

It's like abortion, if you don't like it then don't get one.

Well, at least you're able to do this...

Melon
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
No. "Religion", as you call it, perpetuates a purpose for life and if man wants to stray from his nature than it's a "religious" authority's position to call them upon it.

Why? Just because a religion believes that something is wrong, doesn't automatically mean it is. Besides that, some religions do not have a problem with homosexuality whatsoever. So what do we say about them?

Also, Dread, that's cool that she's willing to admit that to her church. I hope that she isn't sent away, either. Good luck to her.

Originally posted by Brown Eyed Boy
I don't think gay marriage is right. Homosexuality is an aberration.

But why? I still don't understand what it is about homosexuality that bothers people so much? You say in the next part that homosexuality harms nobody, and you're right about that, so I just fail to understand what exactly your problem is with it.

Originally posted by Brown Eyed Boy
However, I do happen to agree with the thought that if Gay Marriage does not harm anyone (and it doesn't) then for harmony's sake let them carry it on.

It's like abortion, if you don't like it then don't get one.

This part I agree with.

Angela
 
This is just stupid

Effort to remove pro-gay marriage judges

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A group that opposes gay marriage has enlisted the help of a state legislator in a long-shot attempt to remove the four justices of the state's high court who ruled that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Democratic state Rep. Emile J. Goguen told The Boston Globe that he planned to file legislation to oust the justices on Tuesday, even though he is the measure's only sponsor.
 
http://www.soulforce.org/pressreleases/pr042103.shtml

MINISTER IN LIMBO AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY BY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH FOR REFUSING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY AND LESBIANS IN MARRIAGE

Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken to be rebuked for marriage, found not guilty of ordination violation on technicality

Cincinnati, April 21, 2003) - Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken, minister of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church (USA), was found guilty today of violating the PCUSA Constitution, which requires ministers to discriminate against gays and lesbians in marriage. He will be rebuked for his actions.



The Permanent Judicial Council of the Cincinnati Presbytery, which heard the charges against Rev. Van Kuiken, found him guilty of violating the PCUSA constitution's prohibition against marrying same-gender couples, but not guilty of violating the ordination standard of fidelity in marriage/chastity in singleness, due to a technicality. Rev. Van Kuiken preformed marriage ceremonies and ordained as elders and deacons sexually active gays and lesbians.



?This is a sad day for the Presbyterian Church,? declared Rev. Van Kuiken. ?The PJC has decided that my actions?performing ceremonies for same-sex couples that are Christian marriages or their equivalent?are a violation of our church law.?



Rev. Van Kuiken says the rebuke is somewhat encouraging as the penalty could have been more serious but leaves him in limbo, as he will continue to perform marriages for couples regardless of sexual orientation. He plans to appeal the guilty verdict because he believes that he decision of the PJC is theologically wrong and contrary to Scripture.



?The Presbyterian Church constitution is every bit in conflict with the Holy Scriptures today as it was when it mandated the subjugation of women and people of color, and supported slavery,? said Rev. Van Kuiken. ?I believe that my refusal to be complicit in committing spiritual violence and my resolve to challenge the unjust laws that subjugate gays and lesbians, demonstrates the utmost regard for the Scriptures and for the Presbyterian Church.?



A complaint was filed against Rev. Van Kuiken last year because he publicly stated that he will not abide by the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) constitution's ordination standard of fidelity in marriage/chastity in singleness, or the denomination's prohibition against marrying same-gender couples. An anti-gay member of the PCUSA has filed over twenty complaints against Presbyterians for these reasons all over the country. These are the first complaints to result in a trial.



?Rev. Van Kuiken is carrying on the work of people like Martin Luther King, who stated that one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty,? said Rev. Mel White, director and founder of Soulforce, Inc. ?We applaud his courage, his commitment to justice and his willingness to stand firm and stand tall when faced with tremendous pressure to compromise his integrity and conform to church politics. We are glad that he will continue to work for justice.?



Soulforce, a national interfaith organization committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teachings against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people organized press conference and vigil during the trial April 8 which included dozens of supportive clergy and over one hundred people from Cincinnati and places as far away as Seattle and Philadelphia.
 
And, in an ironic twist, I read today that a MA Republican representative is going to formally propose separating civil and religious marriage by calling the religious, non-legal process "marriage," and the civil, legal process a different name, possibly "civil unions."

This is the one that, to me, makes the most sense. I can understand if religions or whomever has an objection to gay marriage, and, likewise, religions won't have to recognize marriages between non-Christians or, in the case of the Vatican, non-Catholics. The state will just generate "civil unions" that have all the legal rights or whatever and "marriage" can remain a religious entity that carries no legal rights whatsoever.

Melon
 
?The Presbyterian Church constitution is every bit in conflict with the Holy Scriptures today as it was when it mandated the subjugation of women and people of color, and supported slavery,? said Rev. Van Kuiken. ?I believe that my refusal to be complicit in committing spiritual violence and my resolve to challenge the unjust laws that subjugate gays and lesbians, demonstrates the utmost regard for the Scriptures and for the Presbyterian Church.?

I'm glad some people get it...
 
Scarletwine said:
Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken, minister of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church (USA), was found guilty today of violating the PCUSA Constitution, which requires ministers to discriminate against gays and lesbians in marriage.

Required. He's required by that constitution to discriminate. How disturbing is that?

I'm glad he's not, though.

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Required. He's required by that constitution to discriminate. How disturbing is that?

That's the wording of soulforce.org, not the Presbyterian Constitution. But I'm not sure soulforce.org is interested in church polity.
 
nbcrusader said:
That's the wording of soulforce.org, not the Presbyterian Constitution. But I'm not sure soulforce.org is interested in church polity.

So the Presbyterian Constitution doesn't prohibit gay marriage? Or it does, but it doesn't call it discrimination?
 
Even after reading the more than 500 replies to this thread including all the quoted articles, I still haven't seen a convincing secular reason for banning gay marriages. Frankly I find the notion that gay marriages would somehow break down marriage as an institution insulting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom