Atleast most support civil unions...

**R13** · October 12th, 2009, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by pvfan

Sure you can, and I think thats what homosexuals should do. Yet, what you see on tv is religous leaders marrying them where it is legal. The government needs to give them benefits and outlaw marriage, it would save a lot of headaches.

That's their own church though, any pastor can do that or refuse that, making it legal will never change that. They aren't wanting to go into anyones churches and make them marry them or something, having a pastor do it is usually a personal thing and has nothing to do with it.

**R13** · October 15th, 2009, 06:57 PM

Interracial couple denied marriage license - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com

I'm sure most will think that this is wrong, denying an interracial couple a marriage license, but denying a gay/lesbian couple is okay? Don't get the hypocrisy.

**cuuvapitt** · October 16th, 2009, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by R13

Interracial couple denied marriage license - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com

I'm sure most will think that this is wrong, denying an interracial couple a marriage license, but denying a gay/lesbian couple is okay? Don't get the hypocrisy.

Sure you are very right that the justice of the peace denying to marry the interracial couple is very wrong...but yes for a pastor or clergy to deny a gay/lesbian couple is not wrong and okay by all means...one is not against the law or God's law and the other is plain and simple and how it should be.

**CoeburnCane** · October 16th, 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by cuuvapitt

Sure you are very right that the justice of the peace denying to marry the interracial couple is very wrong...but yes for a pastor or clergy to deny a gay/lesbian couple is not wrong and okay by all means...one is not against the law or God's law and the other is plain and simple and how it should be.

It's fine to say that as a believer, but don't forget for a second that it wasn't that long ago in the south (and really a lot of the country) that interracial marriage was being attacked just as blindly and belligerently by religious leaders as gay marriage/civil unions are today.

I still remember hearing preachers when I was little bring up in a sermon how the "intermingling of races" is bad, and quoting bible verses to try to back that stance up. There's probably still some of those today, they're just not very vocal anymore.

**Biggin** · October 16th, 2009, 02:21 PM

I know exactly what Cane is talking about, years ago the issue in Southern US states was interracial marriage, which was outlawed in many Southern states until the late 20th century.

Stripes, I see what you are saying, but it is just as likely for a man and a woman to fake a marriage to get the benefits, to say gays are more likely to scam the system is nothing but conjecture, fiction. How many people marry for green cards?

To me, this whole mess would be solved if homosexuals were able to go to a courthouse, get a marriage license and receive the same benefits.
If a church does not want to marry gays, thats fine, thats their private choice.
But to make it illegal for gays to get legally married in a non-religious ceremony is proof of religious influence on national politics, which I have major problems with

**valour** · October 17th, 2009, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

It's fine to say that as a believer, but don't forget for a second that it wasn't that long ago in the south (and really a lot of the country) that interracial marriage was being attacked just as blindly and belligerently by religious leaders as gay marriage/civil unions are today.

I still remember hearing preachers when I was little bring up in a sermon how the "intermingling of races" is bad, and quoting bible verses to try to back that stance up. There's probably still some of those today, they're just not very vocal anymore.

We must remember that the color of someones skin is is what they are and being a homosexual is something that someone does. These two things cannot be compared because of that.

**R13** · October 17th, 2009, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by valour

We must remember that the color of someones skin is is what they are and being a homosexual is something that someone does. These two things cannot be compared because of that.

That's according to you and your views, not everyone elses. I believe it's something you're born with, so that doesn't hold true to me and yes, they can be compared. It's only different because you can see with your eyes someone is black, you can't see a gene inside someone, they can't help it either. Even if it was a choice, which I DO NOT think it is, what difference would that make? Their choice to do that has absolutely no effect on anyone else daily life, definitely not negatively, which would be the only reason that'd be a problem.

**valour** · October 17th, 2009, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by R13

That's according to you and your views, not everyone elses. I believe it's something you're born with, so that doesn't hold true to me and yes, they can be compared. It's only different because you can see with your eyes someone is black, you can't see a gene inside someone, they can't help it either. Even if it was a choice, which I DO NOT think it is, what difference would that make? Their choice to do that has absolutely no effect on anyone else daily life, definitely not negatively, which would be the only reason that'd be a problem.

There is no scientific evidence that would suggest that anyone is born with a gay gene. Just as you say that was my opinion, that is your opinion as well.

**Biggin** · October 17th, 2009, 01:10 PM

as I posted before, most science does not say that there is a gay gene

but as i posted before, they do agree that gays have little or no feeling of a choice in their decision

not allowing gays to get married is religion intertwined with politics, and there is no place for that in this country.

**R13** · October 17th, 2009, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by valour

There is no scientific evidence that would suggest that anyone is born with a gay gene. Just as you say that was my opinion, that is your opinion as well.

Your statement is flawed for several reasons. 1) The scientific aspect of finding out the reason why homosexuals are homosexuals, is fairly new. Modern science is fairly new and this has been a very taboo subject. 2) You're referring to one explanation/theory, there are many that don't even have to do with a gene. Is it clear right now? No, just for the reasons I told you. BUT it is believed that it isn't a choice, that someone just wakes up and chooses to be gay.