Abhishek Reddy — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:55:43 +0000

A murder can be pre-meditated, but rarely is divorce pre-meditated, just like how manslaughter is not. But the end result of a pre-meditated murder or accidental murder is the same, just like how a gay marriage or a divorce breaks ultimately God's Word. Yet, does that mean we should arrest people because we think they will commit murder? Surely not... and that's why the right to marry is not made exclusive only to couples who will ultimately avoid divorce. When a gay couple decide to marry, they consequently take to breaking the Word, and will therefore be "committing the crime" straight away, with no possibility of making it religiously valid.* Maybe in the eyes of the omnipotent, it's all the same, but I don't think the church (whichever) is God.

As far as the commandments go, I would suggest that a universal "Thou shalt not kill" encourages followers to be wary to avoid killing in any way, even accidentally... to be diligent and careful. I won't go any further in defending this though, as what the commandment means is open to interpretation, and when it all boils down I probably wouldn't agree with most of it.

(* I must apologise for comparing homosexuality to murder, as if it were a crime. I'm only taking an opposite perspective to my views for academic purposes.)

mjs416 — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:24:44 +0000

I fail to see how the chronological placement of a divorce (i.e. occurring after marriage and i.e. breaking the promise to God) is any less significant in the eyes of the omnipotent one as breaking a rule before hand. To me, that is another scapegoat used to skew the facts to one side. Lets look at it this way; one of the commandments says “Thou shall not kill”, it doesn’t say “Thou shall not kill intentionally”. So….according to the verbiage, someone who accidentally kills someone in a car accident is no different then a pre-meditative murderer. If one is using religion as a argument point; there is room for all kinds of interpretations since the very crux of the issue (i.e. religion) is interpretive.

Mark: Those figure were pulled from a federal stats web site. As far as the “till death do us part” goes; I have heard it in every single wedding that I have ever been to regardless of religious orientation.

Abhishek Reddy — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:55:43 +0000

I think Mark's point is that if a marriage is apparently religiously valid, it at least has the potential to result in a religiously correct and successful union. If two men or two women enter marriage, it is already incorrect, and cannot result in a satisfactory union, by religion. Whether a marriage will last or not is not something that can be said confidently when a couple marries, so one would default with the premise that it will be successful (after all, that is usually the intention).

Essentially, because divorce is a line that is crossed after the ceremony, its occurrance cannot be used to justify prevention of a religious marriage, as not all marriages end in divorce. Since homosexual marriage breaks a religious rule (or few) before the ceremony, it can be denied on Scriptural grounds or whatever.

Suzanne — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:29:22 +0000

Which brings up the question -- if few people are adhering to the concept of marriage for religious purposes (instead for tradition), how would one justify denying homosexual marriages? Or perhaps the whole idea needs to be ramped back so only religious people can get married and then divorce is denied to them?

Mark Hensler — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:23:10 +0000

mjs416, I imagine that those stats are from a fairly general polling?

I wonder, of those 40-50%...

How many actually pledged, "to death do us part." As that phrase has been fading from the vows.

How many are actually religous. Even if they married in a church, with vows read from a priest/pastor/etc., it is often done because of tradition, and not that either hold to that faith.

Of those who are religous, how many hold to a faith which disaproves of divorce.

tenchi_63 — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:26:40 +0000

I haven't been to the forums lately cause I've been really busy, but I am glad to see everyone expressing their thoughts so maturely. Thanks for keeping this post alive with your comments and votes! Good stuff!

mjs416 — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:59:58 +0000

I personally feel that the religious aspect of marriage should not even be considered anymore to date. It is fact, that anywhere from 40-50% of marriages end in divorce in the US (depending on your source). If you realize your marriage isn’t working and get a divorce, you have broken your word to God about being with your mate until death do you part.

I do not believe it to be valid that people use the entire religious concept as an argument point since ½ of all marriages, in present day, are breaking a theological promise anyways. I would hold someone’s opinion of “Well, I just don’t like gays” higher in my mind then using the religion scapegoat.

Suzanne — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:03:14 +0000

Mark Hensler wrote: I understand that some people believe sexual orientation is not a choice. I don't see either side conceeding, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You know I'm good with that. As long as people respect that differing opinions are differing opinions. Facts are still being sussed out (and to be fair, there are facts that support both of our points of view, and some inbetween view, that socialization is responsible for what "feels right" to each person) -- we may have to wait and see for a definitive answer on why humans are multi-sexual creatures.

But I will stand by my belief that as long as it's a matter of consensual choice, it's not my place to deny people their lives as they see fit.

teammatt3 — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:40:35 +0000

I agree with Mark Hensler

Quote: I'm six foot tall. I didn't decide to be six foot, it was just in my genes. I'm of the belief that sexual orientation is a choice and not something "programmed from birth". So, I would compare homosexuality to an occupation. Something some grow up wanting to be and others just find themselves there. But you can still choose to change (or not).

The Webmistress — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:40:55 +0000

When I say 'church' I'm being general and not specific to any one strain!