Do Gays want a LEGAL Right to a Legal Contract? Or are they Trying to Legislate Christian Doctrine?

If the issue is just allowing legal rights that married couple have, I have no issue as a Christian with this whatsoever... The issue is, are gays trying to tell Christians that the Bible is wrong and threrefore they are right about God's views on marriage between man and woman? This is the REAL issue... What do you think? Are gays really trying to PREACH their doctrine to change Christianity to THEIR image? Or just get legal rights...

reply to post by sensible1


WHAT?

What?

I dont' understand.

You think that the gay Community is just out to get Christians, is that it? That a 30 year movement of equal rights is just cover for taking down religion?

That is laughable.

The real issue here it seems is your paranoia that you are under attack or some other nonsense by a group who wants to get equal rights to your own.

~Tenth

reply to post by sensible1


I second the ... second post. The gay rights movement is for legal rights. It has no aim at any religion, only law. Its Catholicism that has always tried "Preach" to homosexuals and force them into subjugation. Not the other way around.

reply to post by sensible1


Actually to continue your thoughts here.

No gay person gives a damn about who you pray to, or what he thinks about them. There are plenty of religious gay people who are at peace with who they are.

Your fear, of your religion being challenged is an emotional argument. The argument or equal rights, it's a lawful argument.

Your religiou argument, doesn't hold any weight in court, or in any social aspect because it is emotional in nature, it is not based in any fact.

Whereas the gay communitie's request for equal rights, is based in law and human rights.

~Tenth

Originally posted by sensible1
If the issue is just allowing legal rights that married couple have, I have no issue as a Christian with this whatsoever... The issue is, are gays trying to tell Christians that the Bible is wrong and threrefore they are right about God's views on marriage between man and woman? This is the REAL issue... What do you think? Are gays really trying to PREACH their doctrine to change Christianity to THEIR image? Or just get legal rights...

Or maybe they just want to be treated fairly like everyone else.
Without a bunch of whacko's in their face telling them how they are going to hell because they are gay?

What do you think?

Also OP: Which one of Gods view on marriage?

That rapists must marry their victims?
That you must marry the widow of your brother?
That soldiers can choose among female prisoners of war?
That more than one wife is totally ok?
And btw: Concubines are cool too?

I'd be rather suprised if gays want any of those.

If this was about the legal rights, instead of about marriage, then they would get together to make a contract that doesn't exclude anyone those same legal benefits. A marriage contract excludes a hell of a lot more than gays. It excludes people who only want those same rights for the purpose of taking care of extended family's children, across marriage lines.

For some in the LGBT community, this is so, but no, some just want the marriage certificate.

reply to post by narwahl


Nothing wrong with a concubine.

Here's that infographic to make things clearer.

Originally posted by narwahl
Also OP: Which one of Gods view on marriage?

That rapists must marry their victims?
That you must marry the widow of your brother?
That soldiers can choose among female prisoners of war?
That more than one wife is totally ok?
And btw: Concubines are cool too?

I'd be rather suprised if gays want any of those.

There seems to be a lot of cherry-picking when it comes to devout Christians and which texts and sections of the bible they like to follow or persecute others with. The hypocrisy is astounding. There have been more wars fought on religious grounds in the history of man. Whatever happened to Love thy neighbor? I didn't realize there were stipulations.

I think it's a little of both. I believe most gays just want a legal right but there are some who have made it more than that.

reply to post by Cosmic911


*drily* When you have a 2000 year old belief system, there's going to be wars attested to that belief system. Give our new ideas more of a chance.

Originally posted by WildWorld
I think it's a little of both. I believe most gays just want a legal right but there are some who have made it more than that.

The honest answer is money.

It's all about money.

Do you know how many millions of dollars large organizations take in, every year, on both sides of this debate?

What kind of salary do you think the head's of those organizations are paying themselves?

They are not interested in making gay rights debate go away. They'd like it to continue for as long as they can. And this is very common in conflicts where both sides realize there is a bunch of money to make by continuing a fake argument.

Coke VS Pepsi for example.

~Tenth

I just wondered: Does chick-fil-a sell shrimp?

Everybody already has individual rights to do whatever they want.
It's when they decide to label and segregate themselves by demanding ___ rights when problems start happening.
But then again, the Democrat party is made up of many segregated groups by design.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by WildWorld
I think it's a little of both. I believe most gays just want a legal right but there are some who have made it more than that.

The honest answer is money.

It's all about money.

Do you know how many millions of dollars large organizations take in, every year, on both sides of this debate?

What kind of salary do you think the head's of those organizations are paying themselves?

They are not interested in making gay rights debate go away. They'd like it to continue for as long as they can. And this is very common in conflicts where both sides realize there is a bunch of money to make by continuing a fake argument.

Coke VS Pepsi for example.

~Tenth

The thing is these are real issues, a lot of stuff you wouldn't think about, unless you are gay, in a certain situation and realize how different it would be if you were married. Child support and access (From earlier relationships obviously) visiting your partner in a hospital, taxstuff, inheritance stuff, Healthcare benefits ...
really lots of small stuff.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Everybody already has individual rights to do whatever they want.
It's when they decide to label and segregate themselves by demanding ___ rights when problems start happening.
But then again, the Democrat party is made up of many segregated groups by design.

Have gays always had the right to marry in the states? You need to really learn some history because gays didn't segregate themselves the people who think their religion should set the laws in this country are the ones that segregated them.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Actually to continue your thoughts here. No gay person gives a damn about who you pray to, or what he thinks about them. There are plenty of religious gay people who are at peace with who they are. Your fear, of your religion being challenged is an emotional argument. The argument or equal rights, it's a lawful argument. Your religiou argument, doesn't hold any weight in court, or in any social aspect because it is emotional in nature, it is not based in any fact. Whereas the gay communitie's request for equal rights, is based in law and human rights. ~Tenth

There could very well be some Legal effect on some religious denominations, based on what they can and can't do, or what they can say.

I'll give you an example, A church may be required to hold Gay Weddings inside them based solely on how the state law is written.

Some denominations I am thinking Southern Baptist as an example take a hard line stance on the matter, And openly preaching against something that they are very much opposed to could fall under hate speech.


Again depending on how the laws will be written, its a very complex issue.

Now is this part the reason for the push for gay marriage, no that would be silly. What is going on is a consequence of the movement.

The main Difference between a Civil Union (allowed in many states) and Marriage, is that Marriage comes with Federal recognition instead of just state.

So my question becomes, why not push for Federal recognition of Civil Unions, on a federal level. That seems like a much smarter battle, why the push for marriage? I understand it can be an "emotional" issue, but a difference that doesn't make a difference is no difference at all.

Frankly it should be Civil Unions anyway for everyone, Religion should not enter in to that, its a federal tax benefit.

If you want Tax breaks you go to the Government, if you wan't marriage you go to the church, and with religions already accepting same sex marriage it would become a none issue.

Why is the government even Telling us who we can and can't marry, I didn't need the government to know I would marry my wife.

reply to post by grey580


lol, what people seem to forget:

1.A concubine is a slave bought for the purpose of marriage---and they are told to give them the respect of a marriage.

2. A servant of the spouse given as a gift, for the purpose of marriage is the same as number 1. Slave/Servant-wives are Concubines.

3. Rape/marriage has more that is missed without the whole context. Women, in that society, were betrothed from a very young age--almost any time you hear about betrothal, it's interchangeable with married. A virgin who is "raped" without a marriage contract on her, is often due to a parent willfully refusing to marry off their child. A woman could also instigate this sexual act that they are caught in, but the man is responsible. Effectively, it's like statutory rape (and God knows who starts that, sometimes), but with a major chance that the woman could be older than 18. Also, the whole thing is that the father can still refuse the marriage. Could you, as that father, force your child into a marriage with the guy? If no, then why do you assume that others would, if it was truly rape? And even if you did, you better hope your sons aren't old enough to pick a fight over it like Israel's sons were, over Dinah. But if you were a grown woman, and you weren't allowed to choose your husband, and you wanted to thwart your father? You had this out, if you were willing to risk it.

A bit more complicated.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Everybody already has individual rights to do whatever they want.
It's when they decide to label and segregate themselves by demanding ___ rights when problems start happening.
But then again, the Democrat party is made up of many segregated groups by design.

No. Not everyone already has individual rights to do whatever they want. There are these things called laws you see.

Seeking equal rights is to "label and segregate themselves by demanding ___ (equal?) rights."?

So the anti-gay rights argument is that seeking equal rights is somehow seeking segregation? The amount of mental gymnastics one would have to do to reach such a nonsense conclusion is baffling. You guys will literally say anything to justify keeping gays as second-class citizens.

reply to post by drwizardphd


Actually, you have the ability to access the rights of a marriage with a lot of legal documentation (except for possibly in New York? New Jersey? Where did they ban such legal documentation, like nutcases?). It's expensive. And a lot of gays already have that documentation in place. So, it is accessible for everyone--providing they fork over the money needed to get the documentation done. Gays CAN have pretty much all the rights, right now. It's just not as cheap as a marriage license.