Maine becomes 5th state to approve gay marriage

[bytor2112]

I think it would be much easier for most people to swallow, if they were to announce that Homosexuals are a different species of human being. They are indeed born to be attracted and live with their own gender. Like gender and race, they are different genetically and thus their apparent gender, be it male or female should be overlooked because it doesn't apply.

But that hasn't happened. As far as most people can tell or at least understand....they are just like any other male or female....other than a proclivity toward members of the same gender. They can't procreate with their same gender and they can't continue their bloodline without procreation with a member of the opposite sex. That leaves many people wondering why two men or two women should be allowed to marry, because it seems that the only thing that separates them from most men and women is the desire for emotional and sexual companionship with a member of their same gender. Leaving aside the religious argument against these type of unions, if g/l marriage is legalized, what is next? If gender is not an essential element of marriage or procreation or continuance of one's family bloodline, then where is the line to be drawn and why is their a line at all.

I am not trying to be insensitive, I am sure that homosexuals struggle with something that I don't understand and maybe they are "born" that way. But, given the recent vote in California.... a very liberal state........many still seem to feel that is not the case.

[Churchmouse]

If memory serves me correctly, Shadow isn’t LDS, so I would imagine he has never had a temple recommend interview. But I could be wrong about that.

Besides, the same argument applies to people who are so opposed to same sex marriage. Perhaps all of you should leave this country and move to one where you’d be happier. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia all forbid same sex marriage. If you think people with a liberal mind should move to a more liberal country, it only makes sense that we should think that people with a conservative mind should move to a more conservative country.

Next, if you’re going to accept your own Church’s scriptures, then you might be interested in the Lord’s model for leadership.

What has been done here to show persuasion, long suffering, and kindness for those who live a homosexual lifestyle. When on this board have you seen anyone, let alone yourself, show an increase of love for homosexuals after deriding what they believe? How exactly is “all the gays should move to UK” letting your bowels be full of charity towards all men? You may claim that the words you chose denote charity “cause they can get married and be happy in another country,” but the context and tone screams “get out of my face and let me have things my way.”

You have every right to campaign against same sex marriage in the country in which you live, but you don’t get to complain that others may campaign for it. You are free to have and express your opinion and your beliefs, but you don’t get to trivialize others’ opinions and beliefs in defense of your own. You may present yourself as godly and holy, but you do not get to demonize others based on one aspect of their lives; for hypocrisy and error run deep in human nature, and they run deep in all humans.

You forgot to add the United States to countries that forbid same sex marraiage. Forty five of fifty states. The federal government doesn't recognize them either. Perhaps you're the one that needs to move.

.

[Churchmouse]

You didn't say "Maybe they could move to the UK and be happy", you said "Maybe we could send them all to you" which implies against their will just so you don't have to put up with them here.

It shows.

That's all well and good that your church leaders told you it is wrong, and you are completely free to not personally engage in a same sex marriage since you find it wrong, but last I checked, the majority of Maine is not LDS and really couldn't care less what your church leaders have to say about it.

As you can probably tell by now, I am not LDS and do not plan to have a temple interview. I respect your right to believe whatever you want is right or wrong for you based on what your church leaders say, but you are trying to extend your version of morality to people who don't share your beliefs and prevent them from doing things that don't even affect you just because you find it wrong.

They don't find it sinful and they are not harming anyone. If you really want to deny them any compassion because they are continuing with a "sin" that they don't even think is wrong then go ahead, but it hardly sounds Christ-like to me.

If you're not even LDS this is a meaningless conversation. You accuse me of trying to push my beliefs on others. Aren't you doing the same. "Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing" and "They lay in wait to deceive". Both seem to apply here.

[DigitalShadow]

If you're not even LDS this is a meaningless conversation. You accuse me of trying to push my beliefs on others. Aren't you doing the same. "Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing" and "They lay in wait to deceive". Both seem to apply here.

Yes, you're absolutely right. My opinions must be meaningless and not even worth addressing because I am not LDS. Carry on, sorry to have bothered you.

[Kawazu]

I think it would be much easier for most people to swallow, if they were to announce that Homosexuals are a different species of human being. They are indeed born to be attracted and live with their own gender. Like gender and race, they are different genetically and thus their apparent gender, be it male or female should be overlooked because it doesn't apply.

But that hasn't happened. As far as most people can tell or at least understand....they are just like any other male or female....other than a proclivity toward members of the same gender. They can't procreate with their same gender and they can't continue their bloodline without procreation with a member of the opposite sex. That leaves many people wondering why two men or two women should be allowed to marry, because it seems that the only thing that separates them from most men and women is the desire for emotional and sexual companionship with a member of their same gender. Leaving aside the religious argument against these type of unions, if g/l marriage is legalized, what is next? If gender is not an essential element of marriage or procreation or continuance of one's family bloodline, then where is the line to be drawn and why is their a line at all.

I am not trying to be insensitive, I am sure that homosexuals struggle with something that I don't understand and maybe they are "born" that way. But, given the recent vote in California.... a very liberal state........many still seem to feel that is not the case.

Hi,

Your post provides some interesting food for thought. In particular, I was interested with your question of, "What next?" most sincerely, I would like to delve into to the heart of that question:

If gay/lesbian state marriage licenses were issued...

• Will people past the age of adolescence have an increased desire for same-sex marriages, particularly among those who have previously had heterosexual relationships?
• Will adolescents with attraction to the opposite sex began to participate in homosexual behavior?
• Will homosexual behavior become, "popularized" leading to gay marriages increasing and straight marriages decreasing?

The center point within the, "what's next," discussion--from a cultural perspective--is whether or not homosexuality is more a function of biology or society. Like being exposed to violent scenes can make a person more aggressive, can viewing homosexual public displays of affection encourage such tendencies in the observer?

I believe the sentiments stated by bytor2112 were heartfelt and not vitriolic. It has been a good to weigh in. Have a great day, everybody.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

[Elphaba]

If I am reading this correctly, this chart says California's constitution bans same-sex marriage. It does not. If Proposition 8 is upheld by the California Supreme Court, then it will ban same-sex marriage. But as of this date, it does not.

Elphaba

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Elphaba]

And I still don't see how the UK has gotten any advantage because of their "forward" ways. Meh.

So what? Gay married couples are not obligated to benefit society any more, or less, than straight married couples. In other words, they both hold the same responsibility for contributing to society.

Unless a reputable scientific study, with no political or religious affiliation, concluded gay marriage was a significant detriment to society, there is no issue.

Obviously people are going to have their personal opinions about the beneficial or detrimental affects of gay marriage, especially religious, but that would essentially be a survey, not a study of measurable affects.

Unless the implementation of gay marriage can be reliably measured, and correlated with straight marriages, and then shown to be significantly detrimental, then it is a non-issue. And it's going to be years before verifiable data can be collected to make that determination.

Frankly, it would also be a non-issue if gay marriage were shown to be significantly beneficial to society as well. Again, so what?

It's just people getting married--some are going to contribute to society, others aren't, regardless of sexual orientation.

Elphaba

[Faded]

If I am reading this correctly, this chart says California's constitution bans same-sex marriage. It does not. If Proposition 8 is upheld by the California Supreme Court, then it will ban same-sex marriage. But as of this date, it does not.

Elphaba

I believe that is why it is striped. "In transition" and not official yet. Looks like there have been several states that have abandonned their more tolerant ways and voted to create a ban on Gay Marriage. California is just one of several striped ones on the map. I wonder why we haven't heard much about those states in the news?

[Elphaba]

If one forced an LDS Bishop to perform a marriage. I'm not aware of anywhere that does that (I've not looked though), but that is a worry some have. Of course if it came down to that I'm pretty sure the Church would just tell its Bishops not to preform marriages anymore.

No court is going to be able to force a LDS Bishop to perform a marriage he is not allowed to, or does not want to perform.

For example, an orthodox Jewish rabbi cannot perform a wedding between a member of his Synagogue and a gentile even if he wanted to, as he would be ejected from his Rabbinical Assembly. In fact, he can be kicked out simply for attending a jew/non-jew wedding.

Some other examples:

• Some churches have strict rules concerning consanguineous marriages, i.e., opposite-sex marriages in which the bride and groom are too closely related, even if it is allowed within its geographical jurisdiction.
• Some churches refuse to marry inter-faith couples, e.g., Protestant churches refuse to marry their member to a Hindu.
• Some churches refuse to marry intra-faith couples, e.g., a Mormon bishop refusing to marry a Roman Catholic and a Protestant.
• Roman Catholic priests refuse to marry couples in which one or both members have received a civil divorce unless that individual has first obtained an annulment.
• Some clergy refuse to marry a couple that will not take part in a marriage preparation course.
• I have read that some clergy still refuse to marry interracial couples, but could not find an actual example of that.

The Church is in no danger of anyone forcing it, via discrimination suits, or otherwise, to marry anyone it does not choose to, for whatever reason.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Please don't assume that the LDS Church is "THE anti-gay religion." Virtually every world religion is very much against it. In India, you'll spend life in prison for being gay. In Sudan and Saudi Arabia, you will be put to death. The LDS Church is not advocating such extreme measures.

This is a straw man.

The only people who label the Church as "THE anti-gay religion," are in the United States.

No one compares the LDS Church to the other religions you mentioned, or to the way they torture homosexuals and/or murder them in cold blood.

The Church has "THE anti-gay" distinction, among some groups of people, but certainly not all, because of its activism in supporting Proposition 8. When it asked its members to donate millions of dollars and volunteer hours to support a ban against same-sex marriage, of course it received notoriety for it. To have expected otherwise was naive.

And just in case anyone is thinking it, this notoriety does not mean anyone has taken away the Church's right to free speech. In this case, the opposition's strong, passionate and often caustic language is protected speech, and does not preclude the Church from continuing to exercise its freedom of speech as well.

I say this because I often get the impression the Church's members feel their free speech was denied because the opposition vehemently disagreed with them, resulting in the label "The anti-gay church" (though I've not actually heard that expression). It was not.

Finally, I find it disingenuous of you to insist your religion be judged less harshly because its treatment of the sinner is less punitive. Either you condemn a practice as a sin, or you don't, and depending on the situation, the LDS version of the eternal ramifications can still be horrendous.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I believe that is why it is striped. "In transition" and not official yet.

Thank you, I hadn't thought of it like that.

Looks like there have been several states that have abandonned their more tolerant ways and voted to create a ban on Gay Marriage. California is just one of several striped ones on the map. I wonder why we haven't heard much about those states in the news?

Given the number of Americans who support same-sex marriage is now at forty-two percent, a nine-point jump from last month, I have no doubt we'll be hearing from those states soon.

Additionally, the fact that twenty-eight percent now say same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, down from 35 percent in March, is another indicator support is shifting in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Finally, factor in the fact that 58 percent of people under 35 favor gay marriage, and there is no doubt in my mound we'll be hearing from these states soon.

I've said this before, and I think we're starting to see it happen. Same-sex marriage is going to become legal in this country. I have no idea how long it will take, as I think it will happen rapidly for most of the states, but then could take years for a few remainders. Who knows?

But it is going to happen.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

If I am reading this correctly, this chart says California's constitution bans same-sex marriage. It does not. If Proposition 8 is upheld by the California Supreme Court, then it will ban same-sex marriage. But as of this date, it does not.

Elphaba

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it stated right now that the California same-sex marriage is on-hold until the fall out.

[Wingnut]

If you're not even LDS this is a meaningless conversation. You accuse me of trying to push my beliefs on others. Aren't you doing the same. "Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing" and "They lay in wait to deceive". Both seem to apply here.

DigitalShadow has never once pretended to be LDS, so how is he deceiving people? Are non-LDS people suddenly not allowed to share opinions here? Please refer to the rules:

2. Please be conscience of the fact that although LDS.NET is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of LDS.NET are welcome to participate and be a member of LDS.NET. Keep in mind that anything posted, uploaded, or otherwise displayed on the site should be understandable to friends of other faiths as well as to members. Please define any LDS vocabulary that friends of other faiths may not understand (i.e. Mutual, Relief Society, and Deacon.)

[Dravin]

The Church is in no danger of anyone forcing it, via discrimination suits, or otherwise, to marry anyone it does not choose to, for whatever reason.

Elphaba

That problem is people hear things like lawsuits over marriage photography and assume clergy is next. For the record I don't think there is any particular danger. It just seems I hear rumbles about such things when this subject comes up on a pretty regular basis, of course when I try to do a quick Google on the subject it doesn't jump out at me (by which I mean isn't one of the top 4 links or so) which is why I don't find it particularly credible, and its always in Sweden for some reason. Or maybe its the misinterpretation of a situation like MoE brought up, the same one that apparently happened in Sweden (the one causing the Swedish Clergy forced to perform SSM rumors that is) and gets mentioned over and over again without reference.

The thing is credible or not, silly or not its a concern that some people appear to have (along with the whole, "The next step is..." line of thinking). Its better served with posts such as yours than categorical denials that nobody will force anyone to do anything (which if you are talking to people who feel you are forcing an acceptance of homosexual relationships on them sounds hollow from the start*), which while true don't convince/persuade anyone. *shrug*

P.S. I am willing to confess my broaching of the subject was very, very sloppy and not particularly well thought out.

* For the record I don't feel somebody in favor of SSM is forcing such on me.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

You forgot to add the United States to countries that forbid same sex marraiage. Forty five of fifty states. The federal government doesn't recognize them either. Perhaps you're the one that needs to move.

If you're not even LDS this is a meaningless conversation. You accuse me of trying to push my beliefs on others. Aren't you doing the same. "Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing" and "They lay in wait to deceive". Both seem to apply here.

See, there's that vehemence again. Take a hint from bytor and learn to use dialogue and not emotional appeals to make your case.

[MarginOfError]

I think it would be much easier for most people to swallow, if they were to announce that Homosexuals are a different species of human being. They are indeed born to be attracted and live with their own gender. Like gender and race, they are different genetically and thus their apparent gender, be it male or female should be overlooked because it doesn't apply.

But that hasn't happened. As far as most people can tell or at least understand....they are just like any other male or female....other than a proclivity toward members of the same gender. They can't procreate with their same gender and they can't continue their bloodline without procreation with a member of the opposite sex. That leaves many people wondering why two men or two women should be allowed to marry, because it seems that the only thing that separates them from most men and women is the desire for emotional and sexual companionship with a member of their same gender. Leaving aside the religious argument against these type of unions, if g/l marriage is legalized, what is next? If gender is not an essential element of marriage or procreation or continuance of one's family bloodline, then where is the line to be drawn and why is their a line at all.

I am not trying to be insensitive, I am sure that homosexuals struggle with something that I don't understand and maybe they are "born" that way. But, given the recent vote in California.... a very liberal state........many still seem to feel that is not the case.

This, bytor, is exactly what needs to be happening. Both sides of this issue need to sit down and talk openly, candidly, and respectfully. Each needs to express such concerns and come to recognize the concerns are deeply rooted in very strong emotions. Naturally, the other side will not always be able to provide explanations that will completely satisfy you, but at least you might understand where they are coming from. At the very least, we might be able to resolve and understand a future landscape for how this will affect religious and personal practice for those who view homosexual activity to be a sin.

This kind of dialog needs to replace the push and shove tactics that are currently being employed.

*It is no accident that I didn't respond to the questions you raised. I simply don't have any answers and don't quite know where to begin. Whereas I personally am against same-sex marriage, I don't feel it would be proper for me to try and speculate what their answer to your questions would be.

[Churchmouse]

Yes, you're absolutely right. My opinions must be meaningless and not even worth addressing because I am not LDS. Carry on, sorry to have bothered you.

That's OK. We'll let it slide this time. But watch it:):):):):):)

We believe our Church President is a Prophet of God. So, to me, his instructions and teachings are not open to discussion. Sometimes we look so hard for loopholes that we get ourselves in trouble. I guess that why we have repentence.

I have sat in Church Courts where people looking for loopholes has cost them their membership.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Churchmouse

[cofchristcousin]

This, bytor, is exactly what needs to be happening. Both sides of this issue need to sit down and talk openly, candidly, and respectfully. Each needs to express such concerns and come to recognize the concerns are deeply rooted in very strong emotions. Naturally, the other side will not always be able to provide explanations that will completely satisfy you, but at least you might understand where they are coming from. At the very least, we might be able to resolve and understand a future landscape for how this will affect religious and personal practice for those who view homosexual activity to be a sin.

This kind of dialog needs to replace the push and shove tactics that are currently being employed.

*It is no accident that I didn't respond to the questions you raised. I simply don't have any answers and don't quite know where to begin. Whereas I personally am against same-sex marriage, I don't feel it would be proper for me to try and speculate what their answer to your questions would be.

I agree. So much talk is from the poles that the one side are religious nuts/neanderthals and the other view is that gltb are absolute, wholy immoral, sex-crazed, mentally ill perverts. (sigh...)

For years my church has offered Listening Circles to aid in finding common ground and reducing the mutual hostility and fear. The issue is still too hot for people to be willing to engage in them though.

Edited May 9, 2009 by cofchristcousin

[Churchmouse]

I agree. So much talk is from the poles that the one side are religious nuts/neanderthals and the other view is that gltb are absolute, wholy immoral, sex-crazed, mentally ill perverts. (sigh...)

::):):) YOU CAN'T CALL ME THAT:):):):

[cofchristcousin]

::):):) YOU CAN'T CALL ME THAT:):):):

LOL. I wonder if some of us are both?

[Guest pimpberries]

Sigh

If the state wants to recognize an abomination; then so be it. I will never recognize these people as truly being married, neither let alone the Lord. So what is to worry for ? all we can do imo; is let them face their fate unhindered and treat them as we would like to be treated.

---

This government has us on the highway to hell, first stop; godless communism.

Edited May 9, 2009 by pimpberries