Frank K Wrote: One of the principle arguments used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California was that marriage is a "sacred institution" between a man and a woman. So if we were to accept this "sacred" argument, how would the various churches that heavily campaigned for the ban on gay marriage on sacred grounds view marriages between two athiests (man and woman)? How could a marriage between two non-believers be considered "sacred" under the church doctrine? If those same churches got together and sponsored a measure similar to proposition 8 but targeted athiests instead of gays, might it pass? Athiests are a minority in California. Would a marriage of an athiest man and athiest woman be more "sacred" than a marriage of two Christian lesbian women? As the American Athiests pointed out, the California voters and the California Supreme Court have set a dangerous precident in allowing the majority (mostly Christians) to remove the civil rights of a minority based solely on Biblical Christian beliefs. What's next? Where does it all stop?
There is a separation of church and state in this country. So, in order to have any real argument against allowing gay marriage, you need to find something more than a religious one. Where in the Bible does it say two atheists getting married is an abomination? And how do you know that two women laying with each other is just as bad as two men if the Bible doesn't state that? Is premarital sex ok? There is a lot of that in the Bible and, as I recall, there is no mention that sex before marriage is wrong, just having children out of wedlock is frowned upon.
MrWonder Wrote: Homosexuals who are true to their homosexuality cannot produce children of any kind. They have to depend on heterosexuality to propagate the species.
archaeologist Wrote: Frank K Wrote: One of the principle arguments used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California was that marriage is a "sacred institution" between a man and a woman. So if we were to accept this "sacred" argument, how would the various churches that heavily campaigned for the ban on gay marriage on sacred grounds view marriages between two athiests (man and woman)? How could a marriage between two non-believers be considered "sacred" under the church doctrine? If those same churches got together and sponsored a measure similar to proposition 8 but targeted athiests instead of gays, might it pass? Athiests are a minority in California. Would a marriage of an athiest man and athiest woman be more "sacred" than a marriage of two Christian lesbian women? As the American Athiests pointed out, the California voters and the California Supreme Court have set a dangerous precident in allowing the majority (mostly Christians) to remove the civil rights of a minority based solely on Biblical Christian beliefs. What's next? Where does it all stop? 1. there are no christian lesbian women or homosexual men.you cannot practice sin and still claim to be of God. 2. when the Bible defines marriage, it restricts it to men and women not religious beliefs or unbeliefs thus the church cannot restrict atheist men and owmen from getting married to the opposite sex. 3. homosexuality is NOT a race nor a minority. it is a sexual preference which is sin and violates what is natural. 4. it stops with the biblical definitions. christians cannot impose any further restrictions and remain scriptural.
Luckily, society has come up with many ways around the traditional ways of creating a family. From artificial insemination, to surrogacy, to adoption... Any two people who would like to have a family, can. If you feel it is unnatural and wrong, don't do it. It's that simple. But why should your views be pushed on to people who don't think it's wrong? They aren't hurting you by being married. They are going to be together regardless.... what difference does the title make? Other than given certain people who want to feel superior a sense of power over other's actions and rights. I'm honestly on the verge of believing that the concept of marriage should be done away with completely.... civil unions for all.
ChristyR Wrote: Luckily, society has come up with many ways around the traditional ways of creating a family. From artificial insemination, to surrogacy, to adoption... Any two people who would like to have a family, can. If you feel it is unnatural and wrong, don't do it. It's that simple. But why should your views be pushed on to people who don't think it's wrong? They aren't hurting you by being married. They are going to be together regardless.... what difference does the title make? Other than given certain people who want to feel superior a sense of power over other's actions and rights. I'm honestly on the verge of believing that the concept of marriage should be done away with completely.... civil unions for all.
archaeologist Wrote: it is wrong plain and simple.
archaeologist Wrote: "marriage has been set for thousands of years, you are no one to make a change to that institution just because you do not like it or want it. you do not get to over-rule the billions who do and who practice it each day"