Ah, shucks, how could I miss this one?! I love it when people use biblical references

Obviously I can't win an argument on the bible with reason. The bible is beyond reason, it's simply "True". So I'll use one of my standard biblical arugment.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

There sure are a lot more crab and shrimp eaters in this country than gay people. So unless you're saying homosexuality will be the straw that broke the camels back, God has already long since abandoned us. Either that, or the bible can not be taken literally or out of context.

Thanks, I know, it frustrates a lot of people, but my message is clear

Here is a good clip on the homosexuality as a choice issue

As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. ypu will find this Romans 14. 13 - end

__________________
The Eagle is Mighty, Crows are Many.

"But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean". I'm impressed. Proof that the bible supports individual relativity AND, when put side by side with Leviticus, it shows some obvious contradictions (unless, again, we are going to accept that the bible must be understood in context). I'll have to use that one in the future. Thanks.

Hmm, strange, your quote from the bible does not match what I found. What version was that? The King James version is much more interesting with that line.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...14;&version=9;

"13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. "

" 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. "

This version says "nothing" is unclean of itself, not just food. But if you believe it is unclean, then it is unclean to you.

All in all, this section of the Bible sounds like an argument that it's nobody's job but God to judge another, and nobody's place to inhibit his brother (or rather, put a stumblingblock or occasion to fall in his brother's way)

Some more of my favorites from Romans:

"4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. "

" 5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. "

"10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. "

"11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. "

"12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. "

this, of course, then takes us to 13, and the original quote.


In any event, I think this is getting a little off topic, unless, of course, the bible is a factor in deciding this is a civil rights issue (and I'm sure to many it is)

Marriage is a Civil Rights Issue. “Civil Rights” are rights that derive from “natural law” that is basic human rights that are fundamental to the human existence. Laws deemed to be obvious. To take an extreme casewalking is a civil right …it is hard to imagine any society that forbids its citizens to walk and forces them to crawl on all fours. Natural law is sometimes interpreted as God’s Law. Our founding Fathers interpreted it this way…but were careful to not called Jesus’ law…but rather God’s law because they did not want a state recognized religion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Domestic partnerships. Let me avoid the word “marriage” for the moment because it is ill-defined and culturally determined, and, for many, emotionally loaded. I think Domestic partnership is an unalienable right granted by natural law. It is difficult to think of a society were two people are not allowed to set up a household, a domestic partnership, a family (loosely defined). Domestic households are the basic sub-unit of any society. The molecule if you will…I guess in this analogy the individual would be the atom. I can’t think of a society that does not allow the establishment of domestic households…in fact society depends on them…as has been painfully illustrated by the erosion of domestic partnerships in the American urban underclass.
In the U.S. , domestic partnerships are so valued that special rights and privileges have been granted to the domestic partnership…tax advantages, hospital visitation, inheritance etc. Some of these may be civil rights and some privileges. For the purpose of this discussion let’s just call all these government granted privileges .
In the U.S. we base our government on the premise from natural law that “all men are created equal”...separate but equal was tried and rejected. So, adhering to the civil right of equality --- all domestic partnerships should be treated equally. One group should not be singled out to receive economic and other privileges and advantages for domestic partnerships, while other groups are singled out to have those advantages with held.
So yes, gay domestic partnerships have the civil right to be recognized by the federal government in the same way other domestic partnerships are…….all men are created equal. This issues goes beyond the gay issue. An example is older people who want to set up a domestic partnership for financial and security reasons. Two older heterosexual widows for example. Even though it is a same-sex domestic partnership it is not sexual.

Marriage is a tricky term. It is culturally determined. Marring multiple wives, cousins, and even children is perfectly acceptable is many cultures and at different times. Gay marriage is accepted in many countries now. Marriage is defined by the various States in the U.S. And different States have taken different approaches. Our “social and cultural norm” regarding homosexuality is changing and evolving rapidly. As it does Individual State law will reflect those changes…in fact they already have.

While it may be difficult or even wrong to prevent two people from marrying only for financial advantages (older widows in your example), I don't believe this is the reason we are encouraging them to get married.

As I understand it, there are two main reasons government gives benefits to married couples:

1. To support families with children
2. Simply to encourage it because a committed married couple is economically stronger than a less formal relationship.

I gave this example before: When a married partner get's ill, injured, or otherwise unable to take care of themselves for a time, they have a spouse to help take care of them. Compare this to a single person who would be more likely to need to rely on the state for assistance. Thus, married couples reduce the burden on welfare programs, and this is why they are given financial advantages. This, however, only works when the couple is in a committed relationship, not a financial relationship, so two widows marrying each other simply for the benefits is taking advantage of the system.

That being said, using this as an argument against same-sex marriage isn't really appropriate. If people want to take advantage of the financial situation of marriage, all they have to do now is marry someone of the opposite sex. Thus, this is an argument against all marriage. We've taken it as an acceptable cost of giving benefits to straight marriage, I see little difference for same sex marriage.

As for the support for families with children argument, I personally dont think it makes sense any more to give such benefits to anyone just because they are married. There are simply too many married people that don't intend to have children at all. It makes more sence just to give advantages to those families that actually have children, perhaps through tax exemptions.

I support civil unions with benefits but i think that marriage must remain defined as between a man and a woman because that is, in reality the basis of the family unit which in turn is the basis of american society.

Okay. I see nothing in there that justifies excluding gays, though. They have kids too, you know.

__________________
Man up.