Why is it so absurd for two people who love each other to want to make a life-long commitment to one another?  Same sex marriage is no more absurd than opposite sex marriage.

Are we still arguing over words like marriage?

It's great that people aren't homophobic, just sticklers for semantics.

~Zoo

Without something to back up your assertion it's wasted typing.

Put me on the side of Lula and Ted.  Same gender marriage is absurd. 

We have five thousand years of recorded history and we find that every civilization in the history of the world has been built upon the pillar of marriage and family. 

I know, I know, we, as Christians, are seen as narrow minded...... but face it marriage has been the bedrock of culture in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, and Australia. 

The ancient civilizations where homosexuality flourished?  Well, ummmm they didn't make the cut.  Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient Greece and Rome fell  or were destroyed because of such sexual pervision. 

The institution of marriage represents the very foundation of human social order.  Everything valuable sits upon that base.  Institutions, governments, religion and welfare of children are all dependent on its stability.  What we are doing today is wobbling the foundation.I believe many of our social problems can be traced to the instability of marriage whether it be by liberal lawmakers, money makers in the entertainment industry, radical feminism or homosexual marriage.  This whole homosexual marriage debate is just another in the line to put fuel on the fire as we watch the sanctity of marriage burn. 

Like Ted said, it's just another attack against marriage.  The way it's been battered I'm thinking it's sure to fall anytime soon. 

EL DUDERINO POSTS:

Really? Traditional marriage and the rearing of children has been the bedrock of civilizations since the beginning of time.  

ZUBAZ POSTS:

Same sex marriage is absurd for a myriad of reasons...

It's absurd for a society to turn traditional marriage, the most ancient of institutions, the bedrock of civilizations, on its head for a few (maybe 3% of the general population) who practice a form of sexual aberration.

It's absurd for a society to turn order into disorder.

It's absurd for a society to accept an unnatural sexual pracitice as natural, acceptable, respectable, even good.

The body parts don't fit and therefore the so called "marriage" can't ever be consummated. And besides, the only life that is produced is bacteriological which is very costly to society, not beneficial.  

Do you really want to claim that I am homophobic and not a stickler for semantics? Is that a road you want to go down?

No.

Sodom and Gamora were destroyed because of their lack of hospitality (specifically) and their cruelty (generally). I guess it depends on the reader's mindset what else can be read into it.

Ancient Greece with all its perversions and homosexuality managed to defeat the Persian Empire, which was free of those things at the same scale. I don't know when "ancient Greece" fell as it took over the Roman Empire from within, then became Christian and survived until the Muslims defeated it (perhaps because the Christians were sinners and the Muslims weren't, I don't know; does anybody want to go down that road?).

(Christian) Rome fell to the (pagan) Germanic tribes. I don't know how perverted the Christians were at the time.

ELDUDERINO POSTS:

It's not absurd for two people who love each other to make a life-long commitment and people do that all the time. And all people have the same right to marry as long as they abide by the law. You can't marry if you're already married, you can't marry a close relative, an adult can't marry a child, etc.

But marriage is a very specific institution and it's absurd to redfine it into something it's never been simply because two people of the same gender love each other. There are lots of loving commitments that aren't marriage.

So  . .lulapilgrim, Ted, KFC . . do you support civil unions where two people have a contract, recognized by the government, that confirms the rights and privileges now available to hetero couples that are married?

If so . . we agree. 

If not . . well then . . there's that whole "give unto Caeser" thing to contend with, right?

LEAUKI POSTS: #2

Most governments already do, however, civil unions (which essentially bestow the same benefits as marriage) is not enough for the homosexual crowd and their supporters. It's only a stepping stone toward same-sex "marriage".

It's all about a complete inversion of public morality so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but accepted as normal and even good. Perception is everything in this culture war and without same-sex "marriage", the homosexual movement's bid to impose its ideology will fail.   

So .  you support civil unions.  Good.  So tell me how, other than the blessings of whatever god the couple believes in, what's different about a marriage. 

And, as an aside (because you stike me as a religious person) do you believe that marriages "blessed" by a foriegn god are valid?

NO, I don't support any kind of legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons.

Then tell me why you don't support civil unions.  Because they are the "gateway drug" to legalized marriage? 

Absolutely not, not because I think homosexual acts are sinful, sin is between an individual and God, not between a person and the law. 

I don't agree with same sex couples granted the same rights and priveleges of marriage because the way the laws are written now, all are equal in the eyes of the law.  Any single, of age man and any single of age woman can marry, as long as they each consent and aren't close blood relatives.

That is equality under the law.

What the proponents of same sex marriage are promoting is an exception for same sex couples, but no one else.  This is called discrimination.

Evidently we were posting at the same time. so again, no, I don't support civil unions.

I'm Catholic...and one of the best explanations of marriage can be taken from a document entitled, "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons".

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=2

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

In a nutshell, because civil unions harm the common good of society. Roman numerals II and III of the link I provided give some good arguments from reason against legal recognition of homosexual unions.

ditto.....and that makes three. 

no Leauki.  It was for sexual pervision and it has nothing to do with depending on the reader's mindset. It's quite clear from just a quick reading of the text.   Where in the world do you get lack of hospitality?  Lot was very hospitable from the getgo insisting the angels stay with him that night. 

Sodom was destroyed because of its wickedness (Gen 19:1-28).  It is often mentioned in the Bibe as a symbol of evil and as a warning.  (Isa 1:9, Rev 11:8) 

I think it wise to heed the warning. 

Heh, heh.  I'm just being a tad facetious.

~Zoo

If sin is between man and God, then the law of man shouldn't matter to you here on earth.  Or am I still missing something?  Because it seems to me that you are arguing against a law of man that doesn't affect you because of a law of God . . that also does not affect you.

I'm really not trying to be dense . . but I'm not gettinng why you don't support civil unions that would have nothign to do with a god.

"Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons" explains fairly well why a God-based organization would refute marriage . . but all are based on Jehova (or whoever).  They don't relate to civil law as a seperate thing from God's law or the creator's intent.

PARATED pOSTS:

It's true that homosexual acts are sinful and sins are between the sinner and His Maker. But these sins are also vices and lawmakers should uphold virtue not vice.

]quote]If sin is between man and God, then the law of man shouldn't matter to you here on earth. Or am I still missing something? Because it seems to me that you are arguing against a law of man that doesn't affect you because of a law of God . . that also does not affect you.[/quote]

I'm not saying that because there are laws of God, we don't have to follow the laws of the land, I'm merely saying that they are two different things.  One can be in complete accordance with the laws of God, but be breaking the laws of the land.. in doing so, they become subject to the justice system of man.  God judges us based on his laws, and the justice system judge us on the laws of the land. 

How is creating an exception for one group of people that isn't offered to anyone else "less dictimination"?  As I said before, the way the laws are now, there is equality under the law.  somehow in our society, we have corrupted the meaning of the word "equality".  For some reason we've decided that NOT making exceptions for people in specific demographics is "discrimination", when the exact opposite is true.

As far as who is harmed, the entire concept and definition of "equality" is further corrupted.

Same-sex anything isn't my thing.  It kinda freaks me out to tell the truth . . but I understnd that it's because of my upbringing I feel that way not some perfet set of rules.  Other than some variant of "God said so" what is the harm?

I am talking about Marriage as it is now.  The Same Sex marriage proponents say that they should be able to marry who they love. However, that is a moot argument, since marriage laws in the US do not concern themselves with "why" people want to get married, it only defines who can officiate in them and who can participate. 

The same sex marriage proponents also do not call for "equality" at all, because they only want exceptions to the marriage laws made for themselves, but no one else.

The way the laws are now, there is equality, but that isn't good enough for the same sex marriage proponents... and it won't be until they get the special privelege they demand.