Altered Lives

This woman lost the love of her life and all you can talk about is whether being gay is right or wrong? If you feel so strongly that the bible is the be-all and end-all of all things moral and true, then why has your daughter not been sold into slavery? I'm sure she must've mouthed off to you at some point in her life. The bible DOES say that "if your daughter is disrespectful to you, then you should sell her...", doesn't it? Why do you ignore this passage of the bible yet obsess about the "man shall not lie with another man" passage? I'll tell you why -- because you pick and choose statements from the bible to suit your purposes. The bottom line is that the bible was written 2000 years ago when our clergy wanted to keep us ignorant and under their control. Most of the passages that you read in the old testament no longer apply to a modern and enlightened people. What do you say if we turn down the anti-gay rhetoric and just say for once, "I am truly sorry for your loss"?

Both had the right to get married. They could have each found a man and married him but instead they knowingly spit in God's face and embrace a life of unrepentant sin. So now they cry "victim" and want to force everyone to embrace their new definition of marriage.

It is only a matter of time though as the no-fault divorce laws have already destroyed American marriage by making it all about an individual's personal happiness instead of the lifelong comittment it ought to be beteween one man and on woman. Unless we reverse no-falt divorce law, it is like we are trying to shut the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Thus continues the fall of America just as the Roman empire crumbled as a result of unrestrained lust, gluttony, selfish indulgences and other vices.

This whole article is a straw man. Marriage laws do not need to be changed. Two people can execute documents that give one another (i) a medical power of attorney and (ii) an appointment to control the disposition of the other's remains. That involves less time and trouble than getting married or getting divorced. Texas has such laws and I would bet Washington State does too.

If two people want to be gay, nobody's going to stop them. But that doesn't mean we should dismantle the very fabric of our civilization to accomadate every alternative lifestyle that comes along. Even in the days of antiquity, when homosexuality and bisexuality were much more in the open than today, even they (i.e. the ancient Greeks/Romans/Egyptians) recognized that the institution of marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. You don't have to recognize a Judeo-Christian God to recognize a mandate of biology. Gay sex was fine with them, as was interracial marriage. But gay marriage was and is an oxymoron akin to "sterile fertility", or "non-competitive football"...the terminology alone merely begs the question.

Many of you cited the example of modern European gay marriage. But it's precicely because of their cultural decadence that European culture is disintigrating from the inside-out, and is being taken over by the much more conservative Muslim influx, as has happened to all civilizations throughout history that devolve unchecked into extreme decadence. As Nietzche once pointed out, future generations tend to prefer bad culture to no culture at all.

And where does it end? Why not allow a man to marry two men? Or maybe three men? Why not allow a woman to marry her son? Or her dog? The comparisons will undoubtedly offend many of you, as your current position would have offended our grandparents. But does it make someone a "hater" to wonder aloud what lies in store for a civilization that foregoes its integrity in order to accomodate what "feels good"?
...If history is any guide, it's a backlash much more conservative and stifling than anything which preceded it, which in essence every sharp historical trend is: Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Fascism.

If gay marriage is here for the foreseeable future, I really don't care. I'm just curious to see the ramifications that it and other Feel-Good degenerations will have on the world of our grandkids and great-grandkids.

SO this is obviously an emotional topic from both sides, but at the root of it is discrimnation with regard to marriage in general. How long does something have to be common practice in this world before people wake up and realize people's lives are being affected by not appropriately addressing it within the laws that govern this country.

Perhaps the better solution would be to lose the word marriage all together, call them all civil unions as they are anyway and require all people who perform this process to do so in front of a judge who would then issue them an ID card stating there intent to be committed to the other person as their spouse. Oh wait we already have that...It's called a wedding license.

If couples want to have their own religious ceremony that is their individual right to do so outside the confines of government rule. From a civic perspective there needs to be a neutral process by which people can commit to another person as being their significant other for the legal purpose of living in this society.

I am not gay or whatever the political correct term is now, but uniting with another person should be the encouraged and be the choice of the two people involved. In doing so, they should be afforded the rights that go along with any other union of two people. Religion should play no part in these matters and any society that says a committed relationship is wrong is not setting any kind of example for our children to follow in the future.

When we all become people, free to live how we choose in a free society with special rules for one or the other, we will ALL be better off and perhpaps can make real progress as a society. Temporary fixes for certain groups, ethnic or otherwise who have been 'persecuted in the past, may be required in the short term to help create a free and neutral society, but the ultimate goal should be for there to be no laws or requirements for special groups, because everyone will be treated and afforded the same rights as privileges.

I am not Christian. I am hindu. When people talk about God's laws which do they refer to. In addition to the paranoia about homosexuality, does it mean that everyone in the US of A has to be Christian so as to conform to the "right" way. I am not particularly religious but it hurts me to hear of this as a discussion as being that of the immorality of homosexuality as defined by the Bible. By imposing viewpoints based on one religious text politicians and the right wing are in essence seeking to define our country as one that is Christian. How is that then so different from middle eastern countries that define themselves by their book and are looked upon by us as behind the times? Can you see why others might see the overt reliogisity that has crept steadly into the American fabric as not in sync with fairness or progress? Trust me I see a space for spiritualism and religion in individual's lives, I just hate knowing that so many of us believe the one we believe is so right that we can choose to define laws and regulations based on that alone. Aren't we violating the very essence of why this country was formed? I am not talking about rapid anarchy or for every nut job to have a means to practice warped and cruel practices they may wrap in the cloak of belief, but most religions have the same essence requiring its members to be good, live good, be kind and care for their fellow human beings. This live and let live philosophy is why we fought a war of independence and a civil war and claim to want to spread freedom. It cannot be defined by a narrow definition of what we believe is freedom or right but by a set of global human rights as recognized around the world.

Can the politicians thumping their chests about their religion and their views on what is right and wrong not see that they are talking about violating the very essence of America in wanting to intermix the spiritual beliefs with laws of the land and governance? Please, listen, learn, expand your horizons and think beyond yourself. The bible does not promote selfishness or unilateralism.

They both had the right to get married. All they had to do was each find a man and marry him. Instead they chose to pursue a life of brazen, unrepentent sin. Now they cry victim and expect everyone else to embrace their new definition of marriage.
The no-fault divorce laws have pretty much eroded American marriages to the point that they are merely based on temporary infatuations. So it is like trying to shut the barn doors after the horses have bolted.
arriage is supposed to be one man and one woman for life according to Jesus Christ but now people don't mind swapping the old spouse for a new one.

Thus continues the downward, fall-of-Rome spiral of America. Like Ancient Rome we are indulging every lust, vice and selfish desire. We are become a nation of obese slobs and the fabric of our culture is fraying at the seems.

Yes, I would condemn an opposite-sex couple who failed to take available precautions to protect themselves, whether via marriage or other means, and then complained that they were left without protection. These women knew that they had no marriage rights in their state, and yet did nothing to compensate for that. Tragic and sad, yes, but avoidable.

Also, it would appear that in Washington State, things like durable medical power of attorney are available through a central online repository, thereby obviating the need to carry papers with you. And if the reality of your situation is that you might wind up in a devastating situation if you don't carry papers, then you should strongly consider carrying papers. You can dislike the reality all you want. You can work to change it. But if you fail to protect yourself because you find the available means distasteful or cumbersome, you've brought your suffering on yourself.