The Same People

The Bible is a great life guide as it was in fact written with an understanding of science. Take for example the numerous scientists and aethiests who have set out to prove the Bible wrong and have at the end of their efforts ended up coverting to Christianity. Now the irreligeous would postulate that 'well they were never really good scientists in the first place then" becuase the facts dont support their view that science trumpst he Bible. One example of an athiest would bee Lee Strobel. (See Case for Christ) but there are many others. The ilogical comment below about a man's seed being the driver for a man not to lay with another man is perposterous and uninformed. Many people believe that to believe as a Christian requires that you check your mind at the door of the church. This is far from the truth. It is also a fact at Science and scientists have never been able to prove the Bible wrong although many have tried. It has stood the test of time, it is very relevant a life guide in the year 2009 as it was 2000+ years ago.
The Bible is clear that gay relations are not something God approves of. God does not hate gays but rather loves them equally with all of his other children. God does not approve of the choice to be gay because the gay lifestlye is not something that a loving father would reccomend to his children. I know many gay men and many formerly gay men and I have witnessed the pain that the gay lifestyle produces as well as the difficulty that one experiences while undiong years of reinforcement of an inaccruate arousal template. Yes it is true, there are formerly gay people who made a choice not to be gay just as every gay person has made a choice to be gay. One of the choices is just a lot harder, and a lot nobler.

It seems odd that in a nation that was founded on the basis of seperation of church and state, we allow the dogma of a religion to determine our laws. Isn't that why so many people fled Europe and created America to begin with? If religion should not determine our laws (as the Constitution was written to prevent) why is this even still an argument?

The problem with using the bible as a life guide is that it was written without an understanding of science. A man should not "lay with a man as he would a woman" because they didn't understand conception. They believed the mans' "seed" was everything and to lay that seed anywhere but inside a woman was a waste of life. I'm so glad science has shown us the truth. . . or has it?

Why do I like musclemen?
I've seldom paused to wonder,
I'm really far too busy
Admiring their thighs of Thunder.

Why do I like musclemen?
Is it something from my past?
Some long forgotten memory that can
last and last and last?

Why do I like musclemen?
Is it something in my genes?
Some mangled coil of DNA that's
meant to be my spleen?

Why do I like musclemen?
is it just a phase? That if only I would let him in
The Christ child would erase?

Why do I like musclemen?
Is it something that I choose?
Some pervers obsession
That if I wanted to I'd lose?

Why do I like musclemen
Is the answer in my dreams?
A message from a messenger more important than it seems?

Why do I like musclmen?
Perhaps it's because I do.
I know that sounds too simple
But that probably means its true

Let's say I'm a hetero that doesn't ever want to get itched to any woman but that loves kids and would want to have one of my own. Why couldn't I find another male soulmate and get married for the economics of it?
If a person can marry another person of the same sex just because they love one another, why shouldn't a person marry more than one other, of the same sex or not?
Things that make you go hummmm....

As long as there are dyed-in-the-wool Christians who read the Bible and interpret it as the word of God, there will be people in America who are not pleased with homosexuality being placed on-par with marriage. You ignore the fact that this belief is something people hold onto like they hold onto their belief in a Creator. Anna, it is not as though heterosexual couples hate gay couples - they believe that God has said "No" with regard to homosexuality, that it is a sin. They believe a society that welcomes sin is a society that will eventually fail. For the non-religious that support the definition of marriage as a relationship between husband and wife, the argument is that the success of families is greater if roles of father and mother exist in the home. These ideas are not politically correct. They might be derided as foolish, bigoted, and religiously zealous, but it does not change how believers feel about the issue. These conflicts of belief strike at the core distinction between those that support gay marriage and those that are against it, and until that conflict is resolved, there will always be a hard dividing line among Americans on the issue of gay marriage.

Too bad all american men don't have another wife in another countery. It was good enough for Obama's father so i guess it is good enough for the rest of us.

I think the California court made the right decision; unfortunately, the fact that we're having this debate 1900 years after that poem was written amid Roman senators decrying the loss of Romanitas, shows that the debate isn't over, not by a long shot.

I write a blog about growing up in a mixed orientation marriage, http://kidsofqueers.blogspot.com/, and all the hurt that each family member endured. No child should have to grow up that way. As someone said, and I can't remember who, "if you would allow us to marry each other we'd stop marrying heterosexuals"
It's about time this happened.

I'm going to try to speak on behalf of many of us. I realize, from perusing the comments below, that I will be open to harsh criticism, but I remind any about to do that in so doing that they are engaging in the very same behavior they are flatly claiming to condemn - said behavior being intolerance.
Quindlen and others call for love and tolerance, and who can disagree with that? Of course gays and lesbians need to be accepted as people. However, it is a principle of life in general and certainly is part of any moral tradition that one need not accept a person's behavior to accept them as people. Otherwise, we would be absolutely devoid of any way of saying that any action - say child molestation - was wrong or bad. I think what many people object to is not gays per se, but the aggressive way in which many try to put a gay relationship on the same level with marriage. Intolerant, you say? Perhaps, if sex were just for kicks - then anything would do, and wouldn't even have to be mammalian, as another commented. But to hold this view requires a person to blind himself to the beauty of sexual reproduction and to the complementarity of the sexes. What I'm getting at is that moral considerations aside, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that homosexual love is in some way the equivalent of marriage. To say it is is to water down marriage. There are those of us left that realize the importance of marriages in society, and some of us tend to react rather strongly when that very foundational belief is attacked.
To recap: yes, gays need love, not hate, from us. But we need not pretend that their relationships are marriages. And therein lies the challenge - you say society needs to accept gays; remember that gays also need to reciprocate that acceptance to those who disagree with them. Difficult? Of course! But not impossible.

When I was about 12 years old I first realized it. It was hard to deal with but many of my friends were coming to the same conclusion about themselves. I was an omnisexual. Yes, its true. We realized what society expected of us. We knew it was wrong. We chose to pursue our feelings. Sex: was for all. Sex, was indeed for all who would hold still in our presence, away from bothersome crowds. Females first but most anything would do. Didn't even have to be a mammal. We didn't brag about it. Often we laughed about it , and at each other. I guess you would have called us perverts. That name didn't bother us. We were in love....with sex.

I do agree with Floridave. I do not hate gays. I respect gays.
What I'm wondering about is why gay couples don't settle for civil unions and be happy?
A civil or religious union between a man and a woman is called a marriage.
A same-sex union is called a civil union. Why make it complicated?
Gay couple would have the same benefits than married couple without the word marriage attached to it.
Those unions are different, they need a distinction in wording.
For those who insist that it is the same : For due respect : it's not the same.
What not get all along and settle this issue once for all?

Why do you people hate gays so much? Will God judge you for hating or me for loving?
Seriously. All i want to do is marry the person I love. And no, it's not because i'm SEXUALLY attracted. It's because I have an emotional attraction, as many of you heterosexual couples do.

I saw a comment about gays turning their backs on religion, and I would like to say that is 100% UNTRUE. It is religion that has turned their backs on us. You know... I think God and Jesus are cooler than to judge me for being different so harshly. Just because I love another man? I do believe in God, but I believe he is a loving God. Not such a hating being that all of you portray.

How would all of you feel if your rights as a couple were taken away? How about you look at it from that point of view, and REALIZE that gay marriage will not affect you in the slightest bit, so STOP CARING ABOUT IT!