Carrie Prejean's Gay Marriage Controversy

[rodyshusband]

BavarianWheels brings up a good and obvious point.
It is important to understand that moral absolutes are passe. Breaking marital vows are common place and engaging in sexual activities outside marriage has long been accepted. The next logical step is embracing homosexuality. Perhaps pedophilia is next.
What has many alarmed, both from a secular and Christian worldview, is the fact that most people oppose gay marriages and the government is legalizing them anyway. This is neither democracy or theocracy. Liberals have become cultural elitists, claiming they know what is better for the majority.

[jlay]

I am pro gay marriage.

All marriages should be gay.

gay = happy.

We need to reclaim that word.

[Byblos]

I am pro gay marriage.

All marriages should be gay.

gay = happy.

We need to reclaim that word.

Preach it sister, hallelujah! (sorry j, couldn't resist).

[waynepii]

This is neither democracy or theocracy. Liberals have become cultural elitists, claiming they know what is better for the majority.

We DON'T have a pure democracy - we have a constitution protecting the rights of minorities from "the tyranny of the majority". Further, we have separation of church and state, so the government can't (and shouldn't) enact laws either restricting or enabling any given religion.

BTW I also think "gay" should be reclaimed for its original meaning, but doubt it will be possible, at least until such time as same-sex marriage is no longer an issue.

[Harry12345]

This is neither democracy or theocracy. Liberals have become cultural elitists, claiming they know what is better for the majority.

We DON'T have a pure democracy - we have a constitution protecting the rights of minorities from "the tyranny of the majority".

Very very true.

Gay people should have ALL the same rights as straight people - the right to marry a member of the opposite gender!

...

Oh... wait...

[waynepii]

This is neither democracy or theocracy. Liberals have become cultural elitists, claiming they know what is better for the majority.

We DON'T have a pure democracy - we have a constitution protecting the rights of minorities from "the tyranny of the majority".

Very very true.

Gay people should have ALL the same rights as straight people - the right to marry a member of the opposite gender!

...

Oh... wait...

Why shouldn't they have the right to marry whomever they please?

[zoegirl]

And any three people should have the right to marry any other three people.

Any group should intermarry between its members and receive rights that married people should have...

Any four people can marry each other....

If you mess with one part of the definition of marriage....then the entire definition of marriage is up for grabs.

[jlay]

Marriage is what it is.

biblical marriage is between a man and woman and their God. However, this is not what we have in the USA. We are not a theocracy. We are going to be hard pressed to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

For one, we (Christians) have corrupted marriage. Marriage is a legal transaction in this country. It is not sacred. It is a contract that can be torn up and discarded with the aid of a good lawyer. And this is the same within the institution of the church. 50% of so called Christian marriages end in divorce. Does this demonstrate a people who are in touch with God? And the church tolerates divorces of convenience all the time.

we want the legal benefits of civil marriage, such as filing joint taxes, and being eligible for our partners insurance, but we continually tear down the institution of marriage from within. And then we somehow seem surprised when it is attacked from the outside. If marriage were sacred to those who profess to be Christian, then the enemy would dare not attack it as it being attacked today.

[waynepii]

And any three people should have the right to marry any other three people.

Any group should intermarry between its members and receive rights that married people should have...

Any four people can marry each other....

If you mess with one part of the definition of marriage....then the entire definition of marriage is up for grabs.

Plural marriage is a different matter in that many of the laws and conventions involving marriage are structured to apply to only two people. Restructuring them to accommodate more than two parties would take a significant amount of thought and rewording. (For example, how should personal property be handled in a plural marriage? ... if another spouse enters a preexisting marriage? ... in the case of a divorce of some member(s) of a plural marriage?, ... ) I'm not adverse to the idea of plural marriage, but I am aware there are significant legal, procedural, and administrative changes that would be required to make it "work".

Accommodating same-sex marriage on the other hand is a simple matter of changing a few words to their gender neutral forms.

What rights, privileges, and/or responsibilities that a heterosexual couple acquire from marriage would you deny a homosexual couple who likewise want to commit to each other? The only ones I could see as even potentially justifiable are those related to bearing children - but some heterosexual couples are unable to bear their own natural children. Are sterile couples less "married" than couples who are able to bear their own children? How are their "childproof" marriages any different from same-sex couples? A heterosexual couple can engage in all the sexual activities as a homosexual couple.

For the record, I am male, my wife is female, our relationship is monogamous, and I have no interest in a sexual relationship with another man, nor even another woman for that matter. How does the fact that one of my cousins is "committed" (they consider it to be "married" but that is not yet available to them) to a another woman affect me, my family, or anyone else?

[BavarianWheels]

Marriage is what it is.

biblical marriage is between a man and woman and their God. However, this is not what we have in the USA. We are not a theocracy. We are going to be hard pressed to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

For one, we (Christians) have corrupted marriage. Marriage is a legal transaction in this country. It is not sacred. It is a contract that can be torn up and discarded with the aid of a good lawyer. And this is the same within the institution of the church. 50% of so called Christian marriages end in divorce. Does this demonstrate a people who are in touch with God? And the church tolerates divorces of convenience all the time.

we want the legal benefits of civil marriage, such as filing joint taxes, and being eligible for our partners insurance, but we continually tear down the institution of marriage from within. And then we somehow seem surprised when it is attacked from the outside. If marriage were sacred to those who profess to be Christian, then the enemy would dare not attack it as it being attacked today.

On the button!

It's convenient for "Christians" to bash the homosexual community for simply being homosexual and for wanting marriage on their terms.

There is nothing sinful about loving and living with someone of the same sex. What is sinful is the act(s) of sex between the pair. But then, as Christ asked those that brought Mary "caught in the act" to Him, "whomever is without sin, cast the first stone" (or something to that effect)
.
.

[waynepii]

Marriage is what it is.

biblical marriage is between a man and woman and their God. However, this is not what we have in the USA. We are not a theocracy. We are going to be hard pressed to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

For one, we (Christians) have corrupted marriage. Marriage is a legal transaction in this country. It is not sacred. It is a contract that can be torn up and discarded with the aid of a good lawyer. And this is the same within the institution of the church. 50% of so called Christian marriages end in divorce. Does this demonstrate a people who are in touch with God? And the church tolerates divorces of convenience all the time.

we want the legal benefits of civil marriage, such as filing joint taxes, and being eligible for our partners insurance, but we continually tear down the institution of marriage from within. And then we somehow seem surprised when it is attacked from the outside. If marriage were sacred to those who profess to be Christian, then the enemy would dare not attack it as it being attacked today.

Very true - marriage IS a secular institution that MAY be officiated by clergy acting as a representative of the state. Many marriages are performed by non-clergy. FWIW my wife and I were married in our own house by a JP on Jan 28, 1978. Over 31 years later, she still puts up with me .

[Byblos]

marriage IS a secular institution that MAY be officiated by clergy acting as a representative of the state. Many marriages are performed by non-clergy. FWIW my wife and I were married in our own house by a JP on Jan 28, 1978. Over 31 years later, she still puts up with me .

She more than qualifies for sainthood.

[Cross.eyed]

Next up getting all that United Nation's blasphemy law and hate speech law forced on the citizens of our country. If he has his way, eventually our government will just be a proxy for the United Nations and foreign countries and we'll all live under oppression.

With the exception of Christians of course, the hate speech for Christianity will most likely increase
here at home and everywhere abroad.

Anyone claiming Christ as savior will be required to take classes in sensitivity training.

Our proxy to the U.N.(-Useless Nuts-)sounds like a lead-in for a one world government doesn't it?

[waynepii]

marriage IS a secular institution that MAY be officiated by clergy acting as a representative of the state. Many marriages are performed by non-clergy. FWIW my wife and I were married in our own house by a JP on Jan 28, 1978. Over 31 years later, she still puts up with me .

She more than qualifies for sainthood.

[zoegirl]

Doesn't matter if the laws need to be changed o be accomodating to plural marriages. It will happen, once the definition is changed. I don't doubt that there are some people who would like to see cross-species marriages.

Polygamy, yep, better allow that. And of course the opposite.