Maine's Question 1

[Franzl]

No, no, no, no, no all the way!

[Franzl]

What was the result? It ended up getting lost in pages worth of bullsh**t.

YES 53-47.

Oh, and f**k.

[Franzl]

I for one am very pleased with the result making Tuesday a good day for the Conservative Movement.  We've got a Bible-believing governor in Virginia, NJ I'm not so sure about, and we have a pro-lifer in upstate New York.  Then, the biblical definition of marriage is restored in Maine.

Is everybody so damn ignorant in your bible-believing glorious hellhole Oklahoma?

[Franzl]

And I'm not gonna lie, I read Franzl's post, and saw the avatar, and thought it was our other favourite D-IL poster.

Understandable... I get upset with that kind of garbage though.

[Franzl]

Your response is: OMG BIGOT OMG CAVEMAN HOW DARE YOU SO HEARTLESS BOO FRICKIN HOO@@@!

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to tell you how illogical and freedom hating it is.

[Franzl]

And I'm not gonna lie, I read Franzl's post, and saw the avatar, and thought it was our other favourite D-IL poster.

Understandable... I get upset with that kind of garbage though.

What part of Bushie's post was "ignorant"?   I don't agree with him particularly but I'm confused what you what was ignorant in his posting.

I find it ignorant that he doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state. Go ahead and oppose gay marriage, but it's a disgrace to oppose it because of the "bibical" definition of marriage. (Although I admit, there is no reasonable secular argument against it) I consider it ignorant to believe that the bible should have any relevance in public debate about any issue, let alone one that denies people rights.

[Franzl]

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

That's a very thoughtful post.

One question I still have though: If you can accept the arguments in favor of civil unions, and you clearly explained your reasoning for that, how can you not support marriage?

Basically, do you believe in the seperation of church and state? If yes, I challenge you to find one argument against full state recognition of marriage. The state cannot recognize religious arguments, and if it does, it is clearly discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs or none at all.

Any church should be able to marry whoever they want, based on whatever crazy rules they want. That's their business, and they're free to do it.

But the state has no business in playing that game, the state is there to provide worldy representation in a fair and objective manner. Discrminating against two consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex simply isn't acceptable.

[Franzl]

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Oh even better, I'd love for the state to abandon the concept of marriage, and perhaps issue civil unions to any adult couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

But even as it is, the state is not interfering with religion's right to define marriage in any way. Churches have the freedom to recognize whichever marriages they want to. For all I care, they can even deny interracial marriages. That's none of my business.

This is very clearly an issue of seperation of church and state, as the church shouldn't have any say about state policy in regards to unions between two consenting adults.

[Franzl]

You'd be lucky if you were half the man JS is, jmfcst.

Please don't mock jmfcst for standing up for the truth that is the Bible that is God's Word.

1.) matter of opinion
2.) irrelevant to the discussion about gay marriage