I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

reply to post by tigermountain


Not quite sure what you mean by that. I gave my opinion that we are not here to judge others. You do not know what is in other people's hearts. Sorry but I am not full of hate.

Luke warm Christian maybe.

Reading the bible, both old and new testament, shows that it is bad for God.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
But, why not define "marriage" as something for the churches to perform.

I used to agree with you... But then I remembered that there are many churches who will MARRY gay folks. Legally. Where would this 'separate but equal' situation bring us? It wouldn't prevent gay people from getting legally married, which is the idea behind giving the word 'marriage' to the church. So, we'd have gay and straight marriages and gay and straight civil unions... What's the point?

The other reason there shouldn't be 2 separate contracts is that it leaves the possibility of future segregation of 'married' people and people from those who only have a 'civil union'. Preferential treatment by government could (and most likely would) become an issue at some point.

I'm married. And I'm not willing to give that up just because some Christians are "uncomfortable" with someone else using the word marriage. They think they own the word, but they don't. They can just GET comfortable or live in misery about it. I don't care. I'm staying married. I'm not giving it up.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


In my mind, "marriage" is a ceremony at a church. It has nothing to do with the legalities of the union, it is something you do for your friends and family and in-laws. Getting the "marriage license" and filing it with the clerk is a separate duty to become a legal union.

I think there is already a little bit of a distinction between someone that goes down to the courthouse and files paperwork, compared to someone that plans a big event and invites all their friends and family to witness it.

I don't think the two should be connected. Someone can get "married" in a church ceremony, and never file the civil union paperwork, and someone can create a civil union without ever getting married, or someone can do both.

As for the churches that marry gay couples, I think it is fine, at least it is left up to the individual churches and pastors and parishes. Some may want to do it, and others may not want to do it, and I think that is fine, but the government cannot pick and choose. The government should have to honor all the legally recorded unions.

Honestly, I don't feel very strongly about it either way, but I don't see any harm in seperating the terms.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How is a lesbian couple going to teach the kid to play fastball?
How is a lesbian couple going to teach a kid how to shave?


How would a father explain girls getting their periods to a little girl? She would feel so uncomfortable

How would a single mother teach their kid to play fastball?
How would a single mother teach their kid how to shave? (I taught myself btw)
How would a single father explain the menstrual cycle to his girl?

Any other question you ask, insert "How would a single parent of that gender teach...."

Wow! Amazing! Do tell !

The OP has said that marriage is basically a contract and a contract can be between more than one person so do you have a problem with a woman having more than one husband or a male having more than one wife?

reply to post by getreadyalready


it is not a religious thing, hets have no idea what they get into till the lawyers get involved.

the mo's want what they get.

why can a long term relationship be nulled by some family member or whatever?

if a civil union will do the job just as being married as a het couple, then fine.


if they are religious then they really don't need the church to recognize them. god will do that.

reply to post by guitarplayer


Well, I was married to a whore once, who had eight to ten diverent men every night for years. So, if one can handle it, its a free choice. If you cant handle it, but you are on the trip of "Its the only love of my life", you have to choose a different broad.

As for christians supporting gay marriage, whats more queer, gay marriages or christians bothering with other people lifes? I dunno...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
In my mind, "marriage" is a ceremony at a church. It has nothing to do with the legalities of the union, it is something you do for your friends and family and in-laws. Getting the "marriage license" and filing it with the clerk is a separate duty to become a legal union.

I understand that to you, marriage means a certain thing. That's cool. You can exercise your image of marriage in your relationship. Each couple defines their marriage.

To me, marriage has nothing to do with religion or church (or children). It is a legal contract and (more importantly) a public acknowledgement of our love and commitment to each other. It's a promise to love, honor and respect my mate through the hardships of life and to offer support and encouragement for their personal growth, among other things.

You can have your marriage and I can have mine. Right? And other people, who think marriage is a sacred union in a church, which serves to make a family unit in which to grow a family full of kids... that's fine, too. Everybody's happy, right? Wrong. Those who wish to stick their noses into other people's marriages, relationships and bedrooms are not happy. Those who wish the government to strong arm the populace with a certain morality are not happy. They won't be happy until everyone acts and believes as they do...

I think there is already a little bit of a distinction between someone that goes down to the courthouse and files paperwork, compared to someone that plans a big event and invites all their friends and family to witness it.

What's the distinction?

I don't think the two should be connected. Someone can get "married" in a church ceremony, and never file the civil union paperwork, and someone can create a civil union without ever getting married, or someone can do both.

That's the way it is now for straight people. They have all sorts of choices. But SOME people (legal, law abiding citizens) aren't legally permitted to do either.

The government should have to honor all the legally recorded unions.

So, why have two separate (but supposedly equal) recorded unions? So the government knows whether or not they were married in a church? What purpose does this serve?

Honestly, I don't feel very strongly about it either way, but I don't see any harm in seperating the terms.

I understand. I do see harm, though. We tried it with black people and it didn't work there, either. Why go through Brown vs The Board of Education all over again? "Separate but Equal" is inherently unequal. That's the harm.

(It's good to see you and talk with you, btw.)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I didn't read that in the bible, it sounds more like your opinion or a justification. What the bible DOES say is that GOD is unchangeable. The immutability of GOD

I have a feeling that HELL is full of people who decided to translate Gods word to tailor their own wrongdoings. As a Christian myself, I don't agree with homosexuality, but I don't judge those that do it either. I can be their friend. I'll just hope they keep the whole bedroom situation closed tightly behind doors. - "By their fruit, ye shall know them".

Originally posted by The Old American If one believes what the bible says, as I do (mostly, but that's another story

), then homosexuality is against God. However, context is king here. Those two scriptures are describing the very infancy of humans on Earth. It's difficult at best to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" if humans aren't procreating.

Originally posted by The Old American In the original text he talked about "sexual immorality", which could be any of a number of things.

Social progress defined by mankind is different from social progress defined by God.

When it comes to the "Book of Genesis" (Origin Story) and "Book of Revelation" (Megiddo), the stories related to those 'events' are very metaphorical and symbolic in nature.

When it comes to God's laws and instructions, they are not to be taken as a metaphorical representation of something else.

As someone who is a Christian male, I am against 'religious gay marriage'. If the realm of man wants to allow gay marriages, they can do so by allowing 'civil gay marriages'. I have no problem with 'civil gay marriages'.

First Amendment of the Constitution protects religious practices. Government cannot put forth a law in favor or against the establishment of religion. Even though the government may create laws that support 'civil gay marriages', they cannot force religious groups to adjust their laws in the same manner.

God bless America.

Originally posted by Phenomium
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I didn't read that in the bible, it sounds more like your opinion or a justification. What the bible DOES say is that GOD is unchangeable. The immutability of GOD

I have a feeling that HELL is full of people who decided to translate Gods word to tailor their own wrongdoings. As a Christian myself, I don't agree with homosexuality, but I don't judge those that do it either. I can be their friend. I'll just hope they keep the whole bedroom situation closed tightly behind doors. - "By their fruit, ye shall know them".

Omg finally A ultrareligous person that i agree with!!!

And also to the people who where talking about civil union but not religous union, Isn't that kinda what new york did??

Originally posted by Phenomium
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I didn't read that in the bible, it sounds more like your opinion or a justification. What the bible DOES say is that GOD is unchangeable. The immutability of GOD

I have a feeling that HELL is full of people who decided to translate Gods word to tailor their own wrongdoings. As a Christian myself, I don't agree with homosexuality, but I don't judge those that do it either. I can be their friend. I'll just hope they keep the whole bedroom situation closed tightly behind doors. - "By their fruit, ye shall know them".

I completely agree.

God's law is god's law. Unbending.

Translating the "Book of Genesis" and "Book of Revelation" by including science is perfectly fine.

Adjusting God's laws to accommodate 'mankind's version of social progress' is wrong.

Sin is sin.

We can adjust the means in which we punish those who sin, but we cannot suddenly make sin into a sinless act.

reply to post by The Old American


At the age of 46, I have been "out" now for 22 years and I admire your stance Old American. As time has gone I've found myself playing the game of "what if", you know that whole "what if I had turned right instead of left" of "what if this way was that way" thing. For a Homosexual this little mental exercise can go down some very profound paths. The big-what if- for me goes something like this

"What if society had no stance on homosexuality, it was never viewed as a question of right or wrong, just something that is and that homosexuals were allowed to particate in all of societies myriad facits."

Upon thinking of this I am usually filled with a feeling of melancoly, I think of all the Parents and children that would of been spared pain, all the happiness of unions, all the children who would be adopted, so many things that could be a positive for the world.

Its just such a waste of resources and light in the world.

I will leave the door open for those who want to seek salvation.

I will not judge people according to their sins.

I will love all of God's creatures unbiasedly.

I will blindly accept and treat everyone as my brother and sister.

I will not accept a sinful act as a morally acceptable act.

Mankind's (the sinner's) version of social progress is different from God's (the creator's) version of spiritual progress.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It's good to talk to you again also. We haven't been in the same threads for awhile?

So, why have two separate (but supposedly equal) recorded unions? So the government knows whether or not they were married in a church? What purpose does this serve?

I'm not advocating separate but equal, and I don't think the government should even know about the church aspect of a "marriage." I'm saying anyone that wants to be recognized by the governmnent as a legal union, should be able to file the correct paperwork and be recognized, regardless of sex or sexuality. It is like forming a legal partnership, and whether or not the people are having sex should not matter. The legal side should be open for hetero opposite sex, hetero same sex, homo same sex, or homo opposite sex. The legal side of the "union" should not be dependent upon whether or not people are having sexual relations.

The "marriage" side in my mind is a personal thing. A "ceremony" that some choose to do in front of God, or at the Beach, or whatever. It should have no bearing over the legal side of things. I'm not against gays being married, but I do believe it should be up to each individual church whether or not they want to perform the ceremonies. I don't think the government should have any say in that matter either.

You are right about Hetero couples having this freedom to choose already, and other folks not having the same opportunity, and I think that is wrong.

I don't think the government should sell a "marriage license." I think they should follow the same corporate law that already exists, and if someone one wants to form a partnership for their legal rights, and next of kin, and sharing of assets and benefits, then anyone should be able to do so with a simple form at the courthouse.

Just to add a different perspective...

It seems to me that the basis of the argument is that gay folks want to get married to enjoy the legal benefits of said union.

It also seems to me that any benefits enjoyed by some and denied others is discriminatory.

Soooo...why not just scrap the benefits? Why should married folks enjoy legal benefits that single folks don't?
Why should they get different tax rules than single folks? If people want to get married to "declare their love", great, but why should they get bonuses and privileges that a single person doesn't? To me, it looks like bribery by the state to get married.

Marriage benefits, defined by law, are discriminatory to single people and should be eliminated. If there is no legal benefit to being married, I don't see people fighting to be allowed to do so. People can "declare their love" in any kind of ceremony they like. Does having a paper from the state make you any more or less in love with your partner? I don't think so.

Doing this would not only, as I see it, end the debate, but make the world just a little more equal.

Of course, folks whose religion is the basis of their objections are going to object anyway, but that's ok. They have the right to object, and those who are objected to have the right to disregard the objectors.

As I said, just for a different perspective.

reply to post by subject x

Why should married folks enjoy legal benefits that single folks don't?

I like your idea when it comes to tax benefits, but what about decision making for healthcare? If a person is critically injured in a car accident, who should have the right to pull the plug? Typically it would be a legal spouse, but it gets complicated if there is no legal spouse. Is it a parent, or an adult child, or an ex-spouse?

This is why I think the issue is larger than just gay marriage. I know several "couples" of old women that stay together out of convenience. They take care of one another. They live off each other's social security, and they look out for each other, but they don't want to be "married." Those folks should be able to form a union where they are recognized as the legal representative of the other party, and where they can absorb the benefits when someone passes away, just like a spouse can. In my opinion, "Gay Marriage" is just the lightning rod that illuminates a much bigger picture.

I'm all for people loving each other, but gay man sex is gross!!!!!