im starting to shift my position to one that makes it not really a church and religious concern of homosexual marriage!

if sissys want to marry...you dont have to marry them in your church!!!
wont stop them, but stand firm in YOUR pocket of the debate!

What people forget is that for a marriage to be recognized it must be sanctioned by the state. A Church wedding is nice but without the proper signing of the registry and having that document filed, it is not a legal marriage.

The Church cannot perform a legal marriage by itself. All the Church can do is to execute a charming ceremony, a ceremony that has no legal meaning. It has but a Spiritual one and only for those who subscribe to that faith.

It may surprise some to learn that before a Pastor can become Marriage Officer he has to take a written test, given by the state, in order for him to have the legal right to perform marriages.

The Church thinks it has a strangle hold on marriage. It does not - the State does. So it is very possible to be legally married and never set foot in a Church. It is also possible for the state to define what a marriage is and to change that meaning. The Church has nothing to do with it.

exactly half of my point....
the fact that marriage is a religious institutuion, just as much as a state institution!

people were getting unionized in religious settings for years....
before the state had a hand in it....
but since issues like property rights, and alimony became a legitimate concern, the state saw fit to protect its individuals!!

but, the idea that the state can unionize homosexuals if they want to is correct..they can if they want to...with out the church's concern, or consent!
but the church reserves the right for them according to their religious doctrine to say NO..we wont condone it, nor do it in our church..thats fine to me!!

but to protect a partners legal and economic rights, is a concern for all citizens..sissies, thieves, murderers, and decent men and women!
and the state must respect that and protect that!

I was married out side in the Cloisters on Paradise Island. We had a judge do the ceromoney.

3 cheers for Y2kbad you have hit the nail on the head.
If a church or clergy person does not want to marry a couple so be it. I will stand with the churches and clergy’s right to refuse to marry a couple. It’s their right even if I don't agree with it. But the state has a different responsibility.

exactly half of my point....
the fact that marriage is a religious institutuion, just as much as a state institution!

people were getting unionized in religious settings for years....
before the state had a hand in it....
but since issues like property rights, and alimony became a legitimate concern, the state saw fit to protect its individuals!!

but, the idea that the state can unionize homosexuals if they want to is correct..they can if they want to...with out the church's concern, or consent!
but the church reserves the right for them according to their religious doctrine to say NO..we wont condone it, nor do it in our church..thats fine to me!!

but to protect a partners legal and economic rights, is a concern for all citizens..sissies, thieves, murderers, and decent men and women!
and the state must respect that and protect that!

You are right. The Church does not have to recognize such a marriage. I married a Catholic gal! The Catholic Church does not recognize our marriage, but I am not Catholic and my wife is only moderately so - if even that much! Therefore, we don't lose any sleep over it. The State does recognize our marriage, that is what counts. (Strangely enough, for some, the Buddhist "Church" does as well. Generally speaking Buddhist see the uniting of two lives into one as constituting a marriage no matter who performs the ceremony - or for that matter, what faith.)

However, I think that if one is a devoted follower of a faith one must fall in line with its teachings. If the believer cannot in good conscience do that, then he/she should remove themselves from that faith (or form their own with a new understanding. It has been done before! Luther, King Henry to name a few.)

As for the Church practicing marriage before the State. Remember, that at one time the Church was the State! It seems that some (particularly the Christian Council) still thinks so.

i still hate the thought of homosexual marriage...
but the it is only fair to all citezens to have equal rights due to their circumstances....

now a counter debate, if i were in government, would be to impress upon the issue that
1 homosexual marriage is an institution that is fruitless in nature, and would have no neccesary meaning other than sexual gratification and nothing more, due to the fact that homosexuals can not reproduce, and would lead to the decay of the natural order of life.

2 homosexual marriage does not protect the interest of the growth and strengthening of the community through ethical and natural means, as homosexual adoption, and unethical and uneccesary invitro fertilization is not an answer to self serving interests, as a child is at stake, and to protect that child from a beggining that can be detrimental to personal and natural development , shpuld be of interest first and foremost along with community building. along with the cheapening of an individual and of a stem cell embryo.

two strong planks if brought the issue of homosexual marriage, and homosexual adoption i would go with if i were a government wishing to preserve natural order, and wishing to go with a morality aspect of the debate.

Hi Y2kbad let me give you food for thought.i still hate the thought of homosexual marriage...
but the it is only fair to all citezens to have equal rights due to their circumstances....

now a counter debate, if i were in government, would be to impress upon the issue that
1 homosexual marriage is an institution that is fruitless in nature, and would have no neccesary meaning other than sexual gratification and nothing more, due to the fact that homosexuals can not reproduce, and would lead to the decay of the natural order of life.

1 Heterosexual marriage is an institution that can be fruitless in nature, and would have no necessary meaning other than sexual gratification and nothing more, due to the fact that heterosexual couples that can’t or won’t reproduce, and would lead to the decay of the natural order of life.

How about love can 2 people love with out sex?
Can 2 people love with out producing children?
Should a male female couple be allowed to marry if they plan not to have children?
So with this said if a heterosexual couple can’t or won’t reproduce should they be allowed to marry???



2 homosexual marriage does not protect the interest of the growth and strengthening of the community through ethical and natural means, as homosexual adoption, and unethical and uneccesary invitro fertilization is not an answer to self serving interests, as a child is at stake, and to protect that child from a beggining that can be detrimental to personal and natural development , shpuld be of interest first and foremost along with community building. along with the cheapening of an individual and of a stem cell embryo.

I don’t see you or other heterosexuals beating at the door of the Ranfurly Home to adopt kids that need a home. Here you condemn what you don’t understand. How many other kids on the streets would love to be in a home where they are loved and cared for? The one thing they will be taught is not to hate someone just because they are different.
http://www.familieslikemine.com/

“and unethical and unnecessary invitro fertilization is not an answer to self serving interests," That is so true I don’t know why heterosexual couples want this….

“as a child is at stake, and to protect that child from a beginning that can be detrimental to personal and natural development.”
Yes children must be protected from heterosexual mothers and fathers that abuse them, and heterosexual mothers and fathers that neglect them, how about heterosexual mothers and fathers that set a bad example with drugs and alcohol.

I have 2 children and a grand and they are and will be taught to tell the truth, be them selves, don’t hate and fear what you don’t understand and treat everyone with respect.


two strong planks if brought the issue of homosexual marriage, and homosexual adoption i would go with if i were a government wishing to preserve natural order, and wishing to go with a morality aspect of the debate.
Now the real fact homosexuality has been with the human race for how long??? Its not a new thing
Yet with all the homosexuals that there are and have been and wars and diseases the human population is still growing???????
So please explain how giving equality will some how end the human race.

vicky i know youre probably gay....
ok..
nothing wrong with that!

but to say that a heterosexual marriage, is worse than a homosexual marriage is a little bizzarre...
and for a person who claims to be of strong faith..to say that the natural order of life and God is wrong is not wise.

any heterosexual union has a possibility to be fruitful..NATURALY..period!
history has proven that, and medecine has proven that.

homosexuals..on no means can reproduce under natural means or constituutions!

and another thing...to say or to reffere to no heterosexuals beating down the door of the ranfurly home is absurd!!!
you forget that the gays are a MINORITY!!!!!
not the mainstream....
so to infer that only homosexuals are adopting kids..is a twisted thing to imply!!

btw...
i am against homosexual adoption too....
i dont think it is fair to a child to be put through the rigors and stresses of an un-natural union...and a union that is not of thew majortiy and is still seen as taboo..
an adopted child has enough to go through, than the shame of a homosexual stigma for his or her family!!

vicky i know youre probably gay....
ok..
nothing wrong with that!

Let me make something very clear I am not gay even though to look at me many assume I am a woman, lesbian and or gay. Do you remember at the protest when the cruise was here there was talk of 2 women hugging up and kissing? That was my wife and I.
There was a newspaper report of a woman from the Alliance that was filming the protest that Sunday. I was the only member of the Alliance filming. I also met Delroy out there that day.


but to say that a heterosexual marriage, is worse than a homosexual marriage is a little bizzarre...

I never said heterosexual marriage is worse that homosexual. What I said using your words. Is if we are to judge homosexual marriage not natural because they are fruitless then heterosexual marriage is just as unnatural if it is fruitless. So Based on being fruitless no couple should be allowed to marry, and only breeders have rights.
You said that homosexual marriage is for sexual pleasure because there is no reproduction. Thus a heterosexual marriage that can’t or won’t reproduce is only for sexual pleasure as well.


and for a person who claims to be of strong faith..to say that the natural order of life and God is wrong is not wise.

any heterosexual union has a possibility to be fruitful..NATURALY..period!
history has proven that, and medecine has proven that.

Sorry you are wrong if a woman is baron she can’t have children. If a man is sterile he can’t have children.
The same medicine can give a single woman a child and a lesbian woman a child. This same medicine has shown homosexuality to be inborn not choice. I refer you to the world being flat and Christopher Columbus in the upper paragraph. The Christians choose to look the other way.
How about the same medicine that spoke out about being born left handed when the church was burning left handed men women and children. You could not convince the church they were mistaken.


homosexuals..on no means can reproduce under natural means or constituutions!

Nor can a baron woman or sterile man.

and another thing...to say or to reffere to no heterosexuals beating down the door of the ranfurly home is absurd!!!

I am referring to the fact that there are more children out there in need of a home than there are people that want to adopt them. Ask the hungry child living on the street if he would like a place to call home. To me it does not matter if it is a straight gay lesbian transgender mixed race mixed nationality, whatever difference you can think of, as an excuse to leave that child on the street and eating garbage is wrong. If the people in the home will look after the child and love the child I say so be it.

you forget that the gays are a MINORITY!!!!!
not the mainstream....

As CG taught me majority is not always right. Crucify him crucify him. Noah it’s not going to rain or flood. Oh and lets add the world is flat.

so to infer that only homosexuals are adopting kids..is a twisted thing to imply!!

I never said that. What I am saying there are more kids that need a home than there are homes that want them. So why tell homosexuals they can’t adopt children? I want to see you tell a child. I know of a home where you can live but it’s not allowed because the couple in the home are a same sex couple. So you just have to stay on the street and eat out of garbage cans.

btw...
i am against homosexual adoption too....
i dont think it is fair to a child to be put through the rigors and stresses of an un-natural union...and a union that is not of thew majortiy and is still seen as taboo..

Not unnatural in my eyes what is one persons taboo is another’s way of life. Should we eat dog the Koreans that think it’s a delicacy. How about the fact that we eat beef and you can’t even kill a cow in India.

an adopted child has enough to go through, than the shame of a homosexual stigma for his or her family!!

People are taught to hate. I have a family member that married a woman of color and his father had nothing to do with his wife or his grand children because they were not all white.
Stigma is not caused in the family but outsiders who are narrow minded. How much stigma is there now for being a mixed race child as to 50 or 60 years ago??

"Sorry you are wrong if a woman is baron she can’t have children. If a man is sterile he can’t have children."

let me re-iterate...with all unions of natural order, there is a possibility of it being fruitful. there are fertility drugs for men and women, as well as history having documented events of baron women having kids late.
for gays....THERE IS NO CHANCE OF RE-PRODUCING ...PERIOD!!

"As CG taught me majority is not always right. Crucify him crucify him. Noah it’s not going to rain or flood. Oh and lets add the world is flat."
all of which had direct effects of spirituality and faith in God. Homosexuality and perverse sexuality holds no religious of faith filled means. it is carnal and human to its gretest extent. to reffer to men and there carnality with the crucifixion of the faith of jesus christ is another bizzare twist of your argument.

"Not unnatural in my eyes what is one persons taboo is another’s way of life. Should we eat dog the Koreans that think it’s a delicacy. How about the fact that we eat beef and you can’t even kill a cow in India."
then go to india or korea then...but for THIS society, THIS country we have issues as it pertains to homosexuality, and perverse use of animals. that is exactly what i am saying...THEY ARE THE MINORITY!!!
and for an issue a scant different than eating dogs and cats :sarcastic , we should excersize extreme caution when we try to adopt and infuse cultures not of the natural order of nature!

the idea is to stregnthen the society, and if now, we try to build, and we seperate by playing the political game of whos gay and whos not, does more damage to us...and i applaud the political thinkers here and abroad for not playing this game of personal beleif...
the minority has an issue..we as the majority reserves the right not to bend to it..
this isnt like civil rights, where human beings becasue of there looks "something they can not aviod".....your sexual orientation is your bussiness!!!

"Sorry you are wrong if a woman is baron she can’t have children. If a man is sterile he can’t have children."

let me re-iterate...with all unions of natural order, there is a possibility of it being fruitful. there are fertility drugs for men and women, as well as history having documented events of baron women having kids late.
for gays....THERE IS NO CHANCE OF RE-PRODUCING ...PERIOD!!

You are not responding to your statement and my question. Which is if same sex relationships can't reproduce so it is for sexual pleasure only. There for should not be allowed to be married.
I ask you, if a couple is baron or chooses not to reproduce is not their relation ship for sexual pleasure only, as well? Should they be allowed to marry?

"As CG taught me majority is not always right. Crucify him crucify him. Noah it’s not going to rain or flood. Oh and lets add the world is flat."
all of which had direct effects of spirituality and faith in God. Homosexuality and perverse sexuality holds no religious of faith filled means. it is carnal and human to its gretest extent. to reffer to men and there carnality with the crucifixion of the faith of jesus christ is another bizzare twist of your argument.

Please answer these 4 questions
Why did the majority believe the world was flat?
Is the world flat?
How is it that Christians believed the world was flat???
Why did Christians murder people just because they were left-handed??

My reference to the Crucifixion of Christ and the cries from the mob to crucify him was about the majority not always being right. No sexual reference at all.

"Not unnatural in my eyes what is one persons taboo is another’s way of life. Should we eat dog the Koreans that think it’s a delicacy. How about the fact that we eat beef and you can’t even kill a cow in India."
then go to india or korea then...but for THIS society, THIS country we have issues as it pertains to homosexuality, and perverse use of animals. that is exactly what i am saying...THEY ARE THE MINORITY!!!
and for an issue a scant different than eating dogs and cats :sarcastic , we should excersize extreme caution when we try to adopt and infuse cultures not of the natural order of nature!

I don’t have to go any where this is my home to. Your religious views should not be pushed down my or anyone else’s throat, its called freedom of religion. Oh and there are many religions that respect homosexual union. Most in aboriginal faiths North and South American Indian practice it to this day.
“And perverse use of animals.” Now look at what you are implying. I am referring to food source.

the idea is to stregnthen the society, and if now, we try to build, and we seperate by playing the political game of whos gay and whos not, does more damage to us...and i applaud the political thinkers here and abroad for not playing this game of personal beleif...

Equality is a simple thing

the minority has an issue..we as the majority reserves the right not to bend to it..
this isnt like civil rights, where human beings becasue of there looks "something they can not aviod".....your sexual orientation is your bussiness!!![/QUOTE]

So only if you can see a condition then it’s apart of humanity. You are so sure that the scientific community that states they have found enough evidence that homosexuality is inborn just as the color of someone eyes is inborn.
If a person is born blind yet their eyes are fine. Should we respect them as a blind human being?

The majority has a responsibility to respect the minority. Its called equal rights.

Answer this on please.
How would you feel if the majority said you could not marry the person you love and want to share you life with???

Answer this one.
Do you leave the child on the street if there is no place else to go except a same sex couples home?

well now youre just straying!
:walk:

Y2kbad You are avoiding the questions. respond to the questions 1 at a time.

Y2kbad I am waiting for you to post your answers to my questions.

Y2kbad I am waiting for you to post your answers to my questions.


i'll respond to your answers when they stop from straying the topic!
your responses are meandering and misleading to the stream of the topic.


btw...eating a dog in this society is seen as a perverse form of animal treatment...i knew what you meant, you just are to interested in spinning the web which fulfills your agenda...typical!

and in a religious sense..MARRIAGE is made for a man and a woman...the laws of most all societies from time and beyond were built on religious ethics.
we dont have to if we dont want to!!!
as long as the majority people believe in the bible, quran and the torah...we will have the majority against homosexual marriage..PERIOD.

vicky and the gays do not rule the world!
;)