Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 8)

*sigh* knew I should have stayed out.  Whether you agree with the other side some of the arguments have been valid.  Do they rise to a level of justification for this law in my opinion... no!   But I am not so closed minded that I refuse to see or acknowledge that the otherside has some points that would give me pause were I them.  If you think the government can never tell a religious institution that they must do something to which they are moraly oppsed you have not been paying attention.

I don't see why we can't institute gay marriage/civil union to give SS couples the right to have a SPOUSE.

These SS couples do not have to get married in a Church if they don't want to, or if they are not "allowed" to by virtue of religion.

The issue is their RIGHT to have a legal spouse. In the eyes of the government. And all of the privileges (and sometimes hassles) that come along with that right.

Certainly we have a separation of Church and state. The argument that the government can't or shouldn't acknowledge the rights of this group of Americans to marry (or civil unionize as the case may be) because "homosexuality is a sin" just isn't a valid argument in a government setting. That argument may (and does) work in Church. That argument does not work in a secular government.

People that believe that homosexuality is a sin don't have to lobby to let a bunch of SS couples marry in their Churches. But SS couples should have the right to marry (or join into a legal and binding civil union -- semantics) in the eyes of the government.

And I truly believe Jesus wouldn't mind a bit.

Yes, really.

"Jesus loves me*, this I know, for the Bible tells me so..."

*unless I happen to be GLBT. Then, Jesus says... "nope not you."

But he'll love me if I'm a thief, a rapist, a cheat, an alduterer? But he WON'T love me if I'm a girl that loves another girl? Or a boy that loves another boy? Really?

Unless those two other people are holding me down and robbing me, in which case Jesus would forgive them. Unless they're gay.

I'm with you in spirit; I get that they have deeply seated, well developed reasons for their position. They have valid points from their perspective and "if I were them" those points would cause me pause. But I'm not, and they don't. Maybe it's a semantics debate on the meaning of valid.

Nope... just looked up valid at dictionary.com.

I understand everyone’s faith but that really has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I want to know where does the bible say for the United States of America to stop a legal union (not religious) between two people of the same sex?

I'd love to point you to something you would think is concrete but I can't produce that. I fully believe that the Bible is perfect in its current form, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is interpreted by the same Holy Spirit that dwells in Christians.

I am not saying that we should legislate morality, it can not and will not work. I do not care one iota what you do and who you do it with. I do not have to answer for your decisions and choices. and yes i said choice, you must answer for that. In Romans 1:28 God says "and since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what out not be done." 

I asked the question yesterday but no reply

First, I find it incredibly insulting that you have determined that it is a choice.  I have nothing to answer for and no one to answer it to.  Second, cause you find the bible to be perfect does that mean we must all follow it?  We no longer have freedom of religion?  The point those of us who are insisting on a non-religious reason are trying to make is your religious belief is not necessarily mine and shouldn't dictate my rights.

the points in themselves are valid or are you trying to tell me our government has not tried to force religious institutions to do something against their moral beliefs using legality as a club.  I do not recall saying that it was a valid argument against gay marriage but it is a valid point.  And what makes their belief system any less valid than yours?  You believe gay marriage should be legal as do I but it is still an opinion based on a set of beliefs.   It is a societal norm based on shared cultural beliefs only neither side has a 100% share.

 So maybe I am wrong; it looks like they are getting their desired results

BUT... I'm not sure we are on the same page here. I see nothing in allowing same sex marriage where religious institutions are forced to do anything. There are and will be plenty of churches who are willing to marry same sex couples. We don't need to force anyone. If someone wants to make the argument that a gay Catholic should be able to have a same sex wedding/marriage in the Catholic church I will tell you that they are not a "good" Catholic. The Vatican is pretty clear on their position about homosexuality and same sex marriage and being a Catholic in good standing, in part, means supporting and defending the church's teachings. I have no idea why any homosexual would want to be Catholic. 

Isnt whom we love, a choice?

Tell that to the religious institutions now required to provide, and cover 100%, birth control for their empolyees.

For me, the arguments from the other side are based entirely in religion. IMO, any argument suffixed with "... because that's what my religion teaches" is an invalid argument, because there is no basis in provable fact behind it. They hold up a book written over 3,000 years ago, written by men who sought to control people, and point to it as some sort of source of truth.

There has been no secular-based reason given here whatsoever.

You might as well tell me "... because the letters in my alphabet soup rearranged themselves to spell 'no gay marriage' " and I would give the same weight to that argument as I would a religious one.

I get that people are anti-gay marriage because that's what their religion instructs them to do. They're entitled to that opinion and they can privately practice their religion as they see fit. I am also entitled to disregard such opinions, as they are mine.  

What does this mean? I really don't know. Required? They can't refuse? They have absolutely no recourse, or is it tied to state and/or federal funding for said institutions.

Did you miss the insurance, birth control mandate discussions.  Though I never did find out how they resolved the issue past a bit of shady "we we are making you do it just not saying we are making you do it". sort of language.

The constitution provides for the free excercise of religion... meaning we can also practice it in public as we see fit... including voting against politicians or laws that are contrary to our beliefs.

Did you miss the insurance, birth control mandate discussions.  Though I never did find out how they resolved the issue past a bit of shady "we we are making you do it just not saying we are making you do it". sort of language.

I don't see why we can't institute gay marriage/civil union to give SS couples the right to have a SPOUSE.

These SS couples do not have to get married in a Church if they don't want to, or if they are not "allowed" to by virtue of religion.

The issue is their RIGHT to have a legal spouse. In the eyes of the government. And all of the privileges (and sometimes hassles) that come along with that right.

Certainly we have a separation of Church and state. The argument that the government can't or shouldn't acknowledge the rights of this group of Americans to marry (or civil unionize as the case may be) because "homosexuality is a sin" just isn't a valid argument in a government setting. That argument may (and does) work in Church. That argument does not work in a secular government.

People that believe that homosexuality is a sin don't have to lobby to let a bunch of SS couples marry in their Churches. But SS couples should have the right to marry (or join into a legal and binding civil union -- semantics) in the eyes of the government.

And I truly believe Jesus wouldn't mind a bit.

I don't see why we can't institute gay marriage/civil union to give SS couples the right to have a SPOUSE.

These SS couples do not have to get married in a Church if they don't want to, or if they are not "allowed" to by virtue of religion.

The issue is their RIGHT to have a legal spouse. In the eyes of the government. And all of the privileges (and sometimes hassles) that come along with that right.

Certainly we have a separation of Church and state. The argument that the government can't or shouldn't acknowledge the rights of this group of Americans to marry (or civil unionize as the case may be) because "homosexuality is a sin" just isn't a valid argument in a government setting. That argument may (and does) work in Church. That argument does not work in a secular government.

People that believe that homosexuality is a sin don't have to lobby to let a bunch of SS couples marry in their Churches. But SS couples should have the right to marry (or join into a legal and binding civil union -- semantics) in the eyes of the government.

And I truly believe Jesus wouldn't mind a bit.

I'd love to point you to something you would think is concrete but I can't produce that. I fully believe that the Bible is perfect in its current form, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is interpreted by the same Holy Spirit that dwells in Christians.

We are all born sinners, (romans 3:23, psalm 51:5) don't believe me? look at a kid, no one has to teach your precious 2 year old to be selfish, or to hit bite and defy you, or to be greedy. God is perfect and Holy, and our best works we can do to approach him are as "filthy rags" (isaiah 64:6). Jesus came to the earth incarnate, fully man, fully God; to live the life we could not live, and to die the death we should have died, in our place.

In Genesis before sin entered the world, Adam was alone, God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and He created a wife for Adam, She was created using a rib from Adam, this symbolizes the 2 working alongside each other as Eve was created as a helper to Adam. Someone else pointed out Genesis 2:24 which says "therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This is marriage. Period. Civil unions and the such slap marriage, as God created it, in the face. Romans 1:24-28 speak to this I won't copy the whole thing, but in verse 26-27 it says "women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." - this is not my interpretation, this is not my "cardinal, my neighbors pastor, or the rapture guy"'s interpretation, This is the Word of God.

I am not saying that we should legislate morality, it can not and will not work. I do not care one iota what you do and who you do it with. I do not have to answer for your decisions and choices. and yes i said choice, you must answer for that. In Romans 1:28 God says "and since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what out not be done."