Politics – The presumptive front runner for the Republican nomination in '08 made the comments on Chris Matthew's "Hardball".
And we've been having ceremonies all along anyway. No one, yet, is trying to stop that from happening. The issue is that those ceremonies afford us none of the legal right and protections that other families enjoy.
And John McCain is NOT saying that we should have the same right and protections as other families.
He can't, if he wants to be the Republican presidential nominee. For that matter, he can't if he wants to have a career in the Reupblican party at all.
Why shouldn't gays and lesbians be allowed to marry? I have heard ridiculous arguments about gays not being allowed to marry because it would lead to adults marrying children or their pets, or marrying children's pets. Some have argued we would end up marrying lamps or other inanimate objects. Here I thought marriage was a legally binding agreement or contract between two people. As such, children cannot consent to enter into a contract or marriage )nor can any of those other things.)
What about polygamy? What if more than two people decide they want to be a family and get married. Is 'two people' the defining standard?
Ostracizing gays by passing regressive laws against them is DISCRIMINATION - period.
More than that - it is UN-Christian! The people that want to ban gays from society are NOT reading the New Testament, or they sure do NOT understand Jesus.
Jesus did NOT ostracize gays or any other 'sinners' - he MINISTERED to them, and he LOVED them!
Remember what he said to the Pharisees? He did NOT come to tend to the 'well', but to the 'sick'. He meant that he did not come for the 'righteous' but for the sinners, to help them and teach them.
Religious beliefs do NOT belong in Government! CIVIL marraiges do NOT threaten heterosexuals, except in their own heads.
Religions cannot manage HETEROSEXUAL marraiges! The divorce rate is over 50% among heteros, with MILLIONS of children living in single-parent families. Millions of heteros also live together without getting married.
If 'churches' can't even manage hetero marraige issues, maybe they need to OUTLAW Adultery and Fornication!
Not intent on sacrilege (on this post, at least), but some people say Jesus was homosexual. Pair the words together, do a web search, and I bet you can find (at least) a handful of websites that state the case. Some say Mary Magdalene was a hooker. You can find a wide variety of opinions out there.
According to the books in the New Testament, Jesus never married. If you subsribe to the Davinci Code theory, you might believe differently (I don't ...)
I suppose that some people take that to mean that he could have been gay. I sort of think that, to paraphrase the Blues Brothers, he was "on a mission from God".
He didn't marry because he was rather busy being about "his father's business".
Mary Magdalene may have been a hooker - there is some merit to that theory. She was a 'sinner', like just about everyone that he ministered to and befriended. Don't forget that the ONE group / org that he consistently criticized were the PHARISEES, the "religous leaders" of his time.
The parallels between the religious leaders" of Jesus' time and the religious leaders (the noisiest ones that support Bush) of our time are amazingly STRIKING.
One such web site, I grabbed the first one I found:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Jesus Sexuality.htm
There are many other web sites. Which doesn't mean their claims are true, by any means. The web is loaded with crazy web sites.
What does it matter, as far as religion is concerned, if you believe in Jesus and that he was what he said he was?
Why it matters is that, even if false, it is plausible, and it makes it hard to justify social hatred of homosexuals.
Bubba: You make the case against yourself. Based on what you say, Jesus came to tend the sick not the well. Doesn't that in itself imply that he came to heal or change the sick into being well. By your own assertation he is trying to get sinners to repent? Jesus did not make them outcast or encourage that type of behavior, but he did not condone their actions or else he would have had no need to heal/tend or change them. So saying that Christ would have supported gay marriage is false. Why would he encourage them to continue in a behavior that we was attempting to heal/tend/change?
Neither of those couples can produce children.>>>>
Not between themselves, obviously; however, through the magic of science, and insemination, many homosexual people do have children. I've been lucky to know three families, that are all extraordinary. Wish my 'heterosexual' parents had given me half the attention, concern, opportunities, or time.
Is there any sanctity left in America besides the marriage of husband and wife?
Is there such a thing? When over half of the marriages now fail, I kind of doubt it. We now "sanctify" serial polygamy.
Marriage, as it is presently defined in most states, is a very recent innovation in human evolution, and has served more economic ends (support of children, children's support of older parents) than any religious function.
Well, here is the marital history of Republicans who claim that they support a ban on gay marraige because of the sanctity of marraige "between one man and one woman" --
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.
Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced.
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona - divorced.
Sen. John Warner of Virginia - twice divorced (once married to Liz Taylor).
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced.
Rep. Bob Barr - not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. HE authored and pushed the "Defense of Marriage Act."
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced.
Rush Limbaugh and his latest wife, Marta, have six marriages and six divorces between them.
Marufio: It isn't discrimination, it's definition. One man, one woman. Anything else is not marriage. It would be like the difference between a book and a magazine. They both have words and pages and pictures. But yet as a society we define them differently. Gay marriage is not real marriage. I don't care what MA says, that gay marriage is not recognized in other states.
As Bubba2 points out, the straight marriage statistics are probably worse than the gay stats.
I really find Gingrich interesting: his wife dying of cancer, and he's out campaigning. He leaves her. We don't even know what finally happened to her---maybe he doesn't either!!
And since he was thrown out of Congress for his conflict of interest problems, he is still yak-a-yak. But, yet, he is on TV almost every day claiming to represent America. he should go to his (fake) outhouse, and take a (REAL BIG) dump!!
America would be thankful!!
What a stupid slimeball!!
P.S.: Sorry to get off on a Ginrgrich tangent!! It is so difficult to avoid such putrified controversy!!
Actually, the real point is that power corrupts!! The bushes and shrubs have had too much to eat. Now, let's move the branches and leaves.
Time to show the Republicans out---and hope that the Democrats figure out WHAT to do!!
Locky12: ok, "it's definition. One man, one woman".
GOOD. Its a definition, a perspective, a belief. It is NOT a LAW for CIVIL government.
There are PLENTY OF churches that can teach their flock that gay marraige is sin - there is NOTHING wrong with that at all.
But it is DISCRIMINATION and it is ANTI-CHRISTIAN to MAKE CIVIL LAW about who can marry who!
The Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by trying to get him to speak out against the Roman government. Jesus didn't go for it - he STAYED OUT OF GOVERNMENT, and he kept his preachings and teachings SEPARATE from any civil government.
Jesus REACHED OUT to sinners - he did NOT ostracize them or "stone" them (remember the parable of the adulterous woman?)!
Trying to ban gay marraige is like trying to make alcohol illegal - it won't work. Many people live together outside of marraige anyway! Having a piece of paper to recognize a CIVIL union has NO difference in 'influencing' anyone to "be gay"!
Bubba2, did you take your meds? When did I say anything about stoning? True, Jesus did reach out to all people--especially sinners to follow the standard. Not to be happy with the standards they set for themselves, but challenge them to live in a better way.
Sure, people live together outside of marriage. That's not the standard Jesus talked about either.
All I brought up was definition. It is one man and one woman. It's not a fad, it's been around for THOUSANDS of years and is the building block of society itself. The problem with changing the definition comes when people in Utah and Kentucky say, well, I love him, him and her equally. Why can't the four of us marry?
BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEFINITION. It's something other than marriage.
OK ... I understand what you are saying.
I have mixed feelings about multiple people being married to each other. On the other hand, it goes back to the same "living together" situation. People, in twos or in multiples, will LIVE together without being married and there is no law stopping that. Bad behavior aside (which most would think that it is), such 'living together' is not 'criminal' behavior and does not need LAWS to dictate it.
Our CIVIL law DOES 'define' marraige as between 2 people. That is ok AS IS. If the 2 people are of the same sex, some may see it as bad behavior, but there is no 'moral' impact on anyone else but those 2! If they are just 'living together', even with no civil 'certificate' to designate them married in the eyes of the GOVERNMENT, they will still be together.
The 'act' of gays being together will NOT stop just because there is a 'civil' law telling them they can't be 'married'.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
darkell
TednGilbertAZ
mcgrievysr
ephram
gochrisgo
GDStar
JohnNeff
mntnman444
muckluck
rockman069
Paulko
avpd85
cybermage
Rubes
ind06
mjs3
KicBoxStallion
Jacfoth
Grant
suznmy
jeremytoday
surething
Neophile
gracewatcher
Russencrantz
agentX
dirtyfratboy
maffst
bubba2
capn_caveman
david_nwpa
mamasan
samsara15
d00blemint
jaxguy
Ousama
Alexia
TimALoftis
joeclear
DrDash
jordan11
STONERS
Ciera Marie
Karina
95)
Vote
He does not mean made legal, He says having a "ceremony" is Ok.
He is not about to deviate from the party law of "no gay marraige".
No, he sold his soul for the party endorsement long ago! So sad - I used to think he, of all politicians, had some integrity!
The "Slippery Slope" theory is dead-on correct. Once marriage is redefined, every group and their brother will be on the bandwagon... Polygamists, PETA people who want to have legally recognized marriages with animals (and yes, that is on many members' agenda), NAMBLA and other simialar groups for pedophiles, etc. Marriage in this country will quickly become a farce and irrelevant... why? because of our constitutionally-provided wacky court system that allows so many civil challenges not done in most other countries or governments. John McCain FULLY supports gay rights to the extent of legally recognized civil unions with tax status, etc. - just not REDEFINING the institution of marriage.
I know what you are thinking... this guy is a homophobe... well, look at my custom-made avatar... it's the state of Arizona in Pink, Purple and Blue colors... BISEXUAL colors. Pink=Gay, Blue=Straight and Purple=Bi. Yes, I am a self-acknowledged bisexual who does NOT support redefining marriage... I do FULLY SUPPORT legally binding civil unions with tax exemptions and estate privledges as if married... just not same-sex marriage. If I wanted to, I could claim being born bisexual and say I NEED to be married to BOTH a man AND a woman, thusly reaffirming the "Slippery Slope" theory... and before you say anything... yes, Bisexuality does indeed EXIST... I am living (or loving) proof of that. LOL. I could be instrumental in having the courts reintepret all laws defining marriage all over again and so could hundreds of others. Do we really WANT that? Our overloaded court system fighting over the definition of marriage ad infinitum? That's what would happen, trust me.