Marriage in a church, mosque etc, yes. On board boats, before a judge, not so. Marriage is not something religions have the sole and supreme rights over, and that's a good thing.

OT: Why the hell should I be allowed to judge and decide who gets married and not? Its none of my business and doesn't affect my life in the slightest. What about people who marry their dogs together, marry manga figures, sex dolls and even statues, marry several people? Now that is weird, perhaps people who are offended by certain types of marriage should adress bullshit like that before they attack gay marriage.

I happen to know a lot of gay people, they're just people like everyone else and they fall in love like everyone else. If they want to get married, let them. This topic is like racism; born out of fear and ignorance. I seriously doubt that anyone opposed to gay marriage has ever spent any meaningful time with a single gay person.

Religious folks see marriage as a sacred vow between a man and a woman, with God as their witness, so to those individuals, it is a very deeply religious thing. Would you be on board with legal civil unions that give similar or same tax and legal benefits to same-sex couples? It would satisfy the need for same sex couples to have equal rights and protection under the law, while maybe keeping religious folks happy by keeping marriage (a term many hold sacred), defined as it currently is. To me this sounds like a good compromise. On that note, if a same-sex couple wants to have a religious marriage cerimony, I don't have any problem with them finding a minister who is ok with doing that.

I appreciate that, but I try to refrain from calling anybody a bigot (including Fordy) without having real proof that they are. Though some of what he's said could easily come across as bigotry towards Religous people or those who disagree with him, I'm not going to jump to the conclusion he is actually a bigot. He's definitely emotionally charged on this subject and has gone a bit overboard, but I think that word should be used carefully.

A fine point, religion is, if anything, open to personal conviction and interpretation (the sheer amount of different directions and branches of every major religion should show as much) so I think that as long as the minister is fine with it, its no harm no foul. Individuals should not have their faith discredited and doubted simply because they don't subscribe to the exact same opinion and direction others do, the most important religious figures were usually reformers of some kind, people who brought their religions into new directions, often better suited for an ever-evolving society with a diverse population, many different cultural aspects and millions of personal convictions.

It isn't that long ago that we burned people in the name of god, no one can mourn over those days being long lost, one day we will look equally upon denying wholesome human beings the right to profess and show their love in modern society. Not judging others is a core subject of the bible, I find it somewhat strange then that the most judgemental people I have ever met are zealous followers of that very book who swear to those exact teachings.

One can perfectly well follow the teachings of jesus without being insufferable towards those around you, whether they be gay, atheist or belong to a different religion or belief. As long as you stay true and have a shot at salvation and show love and understanding to those around you, you're in the green the way I see it.

PS: I don't believe, nor have I ever believed in any kind of god or deity.

I'm going to breifly address people on both sides of this debate (not to anybody specific here, just in general)...

First, to those Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong, don't you believe that we have also done things that are 'wrong' and been forgiven for those things by God? If that is the case, we have no right to pass judgement on other people who sin just like we still do. If the real standard is a perfect God, we all fall short of that, so we are no better than any other person compared to that standard, and they are just as forgiven by that same God as we are. We should live our lives by the standards that God has shown us through the example of Jesus. If we do this, it is impossible to be judgemental and bigoted. Jesus was hated by the religious leaders of the time specifically because he assoiciated with those deemed to be unclean and sinners by the religious. Our primary job here on earth is to live out the examples of Love shown by the One we claim to follow. If we were to actually do that, people might recognize us "by the love we have for others" instead of by how exclusive and judgemental we are. The core message of Christianity is very simple and puts everyone on equal footing... none of us can match up to the standard of perfection, and all of us are offered forgiveness and redemption. Our reaction to that should be to show the same love and forgiveness that we have experienced to everyone we come in contact with. When it comes down to it, we will be judged by how we treat others.

To those who view Christians as bigots, though some in the religious community may be, that was never the example set forth by the Jesus described in the Bible. He was an incredibly accepting, loving, forgiving man who anybody should be proud to emulate, regardless of whether you believe He was God or buy into any religious mumbo jumbo.

That's my perspective.

I am all for poligamy also.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said (aside from the PS at the end, of course). As a person of faith, I find the bold part to be a very sad reality. Jesus made a point to put everyone on equal footing and treat everyone equally, yet some do the exact opposite in His name.

As I said in previous posts, I may personally believe that homosexual acts are wrong, but I don't see it as any more wrong than any of the stuff I've done or continue to struggle with, and it's certainly not something that should cause me to judge anyone or treat them with anything other than dignity and respect.

To put it in perspective, most Christian guys probably think viewing Pornography is a sexual sin, but roughly 100% of us have looked at it. If we're forgiven for our faults, we cannot judge others for theirs... period.

So your earlier post was not lazy? Then perhaps you can enlighten me on what asking the exact same questions that I answered just a day before you asked considered. In a reasonable argument, arguments are built upon, not repeated. I have several things I could call it, but I'll let you decide which one it is.

If you're presenting a hypothetical, and then complaining that I'm going down that road to show WHY your hypothetical is not sound, then it means you're either A. Not confident with the soundness of your own hypothetical, or B. Not wanting it to be questioned. I can see you're backpedalling now and claiming it as a moral issue only. So why did you compare it to alcohol? There is a distinct difference between something morally wrong and something physically damaging for a child.

See, this is where your argument on morality is becoming unstuck. You're claiming that forcing views onto others is wrong, but totally neglect the fact that parents as viewed as authoritative figures, and in such a stance, the line between opinion and ruling becomes small to obsolete. How exactly are you expecting a talk about opinion to a child to be? "Son, I don't think you should be gay because it's wrong, but that's only my opinion". Doesn't exactly sound like the authoritative figure, does it, especially one that GUARANTEES their child wont be gay. When have you seen a child QUESTION parental authority? They've certainly acted out on it, with fear of repercussion such as being punished. However, that is STILL a lot of influence. Authority takes a lot of responsibility in on itself, and you'll see in a lot of society that qualifications for authority over others require some kind of training in such, or some kind of oath to be taken. That being said, you see nothing wrong with children being taught questionable, morals by their parents, like that being gay is wrong because they believe it, or if whites are genetically superior to blacks because they believe it, or that girls only belong in the kitchen because they believe it? Tell me, how would one who has parental authority act on a child who is showing homosexual tendancies, WITHOUT any influence by their parental authority on what is deemed absolute and what is deemed debatable, especially a parent who GUARANTEES their child will not be gay? Would you consider ANY punishment on this child for being gay as bigoted? 

Once again, I have to bring up the definition of bigotry:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Note the term intolerance, the action defining the complement of toleration. Definition:

Toleration is "the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves. One can meaningfully speak of tolerating, ie of allowing or permitting, only if one is in a position to disallow”

This IS the definition of bigotry that you've completely missed. If one is "in a position to disallow" (eg. PARENTAL AUTHORITY), then that is regarded as intolerance. Treatment via intolerance is one path of bigotry (the other being hatred).

So, explain to me once again, HOW is my justification of bigotry misused?

Fordy is like the only one making any sense on this thread.

Telling your kids that being gay is wrong is not the same as saying being gay is wrong? What the fuck?

I got an aneurysm from reading some of this shit.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Show me where I have highlighted a particular group in this discussion, letalone regard them, unless of course you're accusing me of being prejudiced towards gays by being too sympathetic towards them...

It's a pretty simple concept called logic. You should try it, sometime...