my whole point is i dont give a damn if your gay, this isnt about what i think of your orientation its about the principals of this country yes we were founded on christian beliefs those being that God created man with free will.

I think you'll find that most conservatives are looking at this from a behavior standpoint...they see it as not natural or normal...so in their eyes...the thought process goes like this..." If we believe that this behavior is not natural / normal...then why would want to sanction this behavior...by making it legal "...

What about the straight couples who can't reproduce? Or choose not to? Should they not be allowed to get married?

but they can via artificial insemination..or...through the use of fertility drugs...

Lesbians can get pregnant through artifical insemination as well .

He was saying people get married because they can reproduce. I'm asking if he thinks that those who can't or don't want to shouldn't be able to get married.

by direct referendum ....the people have spoken.....


at least they have the same benefits as a married(man and woman) couple.

They have done studies of adopted twins.

They have shown differences in the brains of gays and straights with Cat Scans.

I can't recall the exact nature of the other studies. But...I will.

Does the Catholic church approve of that?

no way !!!... ...***bless me Father for I have sinned***...

ouch !!...that's quite a shot in the head !...

I dont know how i feel about this.... I have nothing against gay people.. in all honesty im leaning more twords it... after all i dont beleive in special rights for anyone because of their gender, race, or what they prefer in bed<quite frankly thats no ones business but their own>.. I beleive that it is a "special right" for male female to be married since it is in void of same sex to do so.. Just as I beleive it is a "special right" for gays to be able to insure their partner and not hetrosexuals.. and the list goes on and on.. the woman who sues cause she cant do a job of heavy lifting... Facts are I beleive its a a "special right" issue . there will be anger and hatred in this world till everyone is treated equally..

thats what im talking about..... never should of happened.. why not two same sexed people that live as married without paper getting those rights... as a mater of fact im sure one would be jailed for doing the very same thing... im gussing id rather have them be able to get married.. right or wrong? that i dont know... it doesnt hurt me so really i dont care.. it doesnt hurt anyone... if i dont get a job soon i think ill get a roomate who is female say she is my lover to get insurance what are they going to do? put a camera in my bedroom? yes im gay, but we have a sexless union..lol kidding I couldnt do that but im sure lots of people could!

god also said....... do unto others as you wish them to do unto you.... now don't tell me acceptance isnt one of those things..

EXACTLY!!! We are only human and just want the same "rights" that everyone else has!!

i know i use to be like that most of my life actually then i grew up.

well...three cheers for you...and...hip hip hooray !!...

One more time.

This was not founded as a Cristian country.

If the founders intended the bible to be the sole foundation for our law they certainly would have said so.

Most of the arguments in this thread come down to because the bible says it is wrong. I am pretty sure there are a few things the bible says are wrong that many of you do the bible cautions against and some behaviors the bible instructs you to do you do not do.

I bet there's more than one male reader here who has spilled their seed?

From an excellent paper available on line by the Seventh-day Adventist at http://www.sdakinship.org/anotherpov/05.htm titled Homosexuality: Another Adventist Point of View The Bible and Homosexual Behavior

"Some scriptural passages that have been used against homosexuals do not address homosexuality as the primary issue. For instance, the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about the offense against the sacred duty of hospitality portrayed by homosexual rape. Ezekiel 16:46-49 and Judges 19-21 interprets Genesis 19 similarly.16 In this illustration, ostensibly heterosexual males are intent on humiliating strangers and "demasculinizing" them. The violence of the attempted male rape heightens the atrocity of the offense. The logic that uses the brutality of male rape to characterize committed long-term gay/lesbian relationships in the twentieth century is flawed--and offensive to many Christians.

Other texts that have been used to justify the Christian position against homosexuals are rather ambiguous. First Corinthians 6:9-10 and First Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai (and malakois) among those who will be denied salvation under the reign of God. This obscure term has been translated as "homosexual." However, the exact meaning is unclear and debatable. It certainly does not include lesbian women and probably only relates to a certain type of male sexual offender (or prostitute). This word must be interpreted in light of the abuse and promiscuity associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire--which is not representative of the twentieth century gay/lesbian community in the United States.17-19 In short, it is unclear whether the scriptural issue revolves around homosexuality, prostitution, or promiscuity.

Furthermore, some Adventists will argue that God did not create same-sex partnerships in the originally conceived Eden as another point against homosexuality. Genesis 1-3 show Adam and Eve created for companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard human relationship to teach a religious lesson. The crux of the example regards the love and wisdom of God, who made all good things and wills no evil upon human beings. Nothing suggests that biblical authors intended the story of creation to be a lesson on sexual orientation.20

Eliminating these texts due to irrelevance or ambiguity regarding homosexuality, there remain three scriptural references that remain at the heart of Adventist positions against it. However, it should be duly noted that these texts are often cited out of context to the times or the primary lessons being conveyed. Furthermore, these texts do not describe a dynamic of voluntary consensual loving adult relationships between members of the same gender.

Two Old Testament references appear to condemn homosexual behavior. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 state that certain male-male sexual behavior is an "abomination." Such acts were considered abominations in Old Testament times for several reasons. The pre-scientific understanding was that male semen contained all of the biological essentials for nascent life. With no knowledge of the female ovum and ovulation, it was assumed that women only provided incubating space. Therefore, the "spilling" of semen for any non-procreative purpose was considered sinful--whether it be coitus interruptus, male homosexual acts or male masturbation. One can imagine how a tribe struggling to populate an area in which it was a minority would value procreative potential. In addition, within the patriarchalism of Old Testament Jewish culture, heterosexual male dignity was considered compromised when a man assumed female roles (including sexual activities). Furthermore, because certain ritualized homosexual practices (not a loving adult consensual same-sex relationship) were associated with idolatrous practices (idolatry considered the "abomination"), it was considered "un-Jewish." For some Christian literalists, these verses are viewed to prescribe execution for all persons committing homosexual acts. Particularly when isolated out of context, Old Testament scriptures can be cruelly misrepresented. Though extreme, some Christian groups continue to advocate death/destruction of all homosexuals.21-23

The third text used to condemn homosexuals is Romans 1:26-27 where Paul describes homosexual behavior as "unnatural" (although these activities are more accurately translated as "atypical" or "unconventional" rather than "unnatural" or "abnormal"--Paul describes God using the very same words para physin in Romans 11:24).16 Paul was not aware of the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and he also assumed that everyone was naturally and compellingly heterosexual. Paul did not understand that homosexual orientation is "natural" for a minority of human beings. The scientific concept of a "homosexual orientation" was simply not available to Paul's world (that science to be reviewed later in this paper).21 Paul assumed that all of those he condemned were heterosexual--and as such, these heterosexuals were acting contrary to sexual nature as he knew it.17 Most importantly, the activities that Paul describes are about lustful, lewd, and degrading homosexual behaviors (associated with idolatry) rather than sexual affections expressed within the context of long-term committed homosexual relationships in the twentieth century.

However, even if the Bible may be interpreted to take a negative view against homosexual behavior, this does not solve the problem of how present-day Christians should interpret or understand scriptures with respect to their human relationships. There are many sexual attitudes, practices, and restrictions which are normative in scripture, but which Christians no longer accept as normative. For instance, most Christians do not accept polygamy, levirate marriage (the widow of a childless couple having intercourse with each brother of her deceased husband until a male heir is produced), women as "owned property," endogamy (marriage within the Jewish faith), compulsory celibacy, or slavery.

It is clear that Christians regard certain rules, particularly in the Old Testament, as no longer binding or relevant. Understanding the principles employed in the selection process is crucial. For example, most modern Christian readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting incest, rape, adultery, and bestiality. But, we disagree with the Bible on a number of other sexual mores. Despite biblical condemnation, Christians generally allow voluntary celibacy, exogamy, sex during menstruation, masturbation (with some restrictions), birth control, and private nudity (with some restrictions). In addition, the Bible permitted behaviors that Christians usually shun such as polygamy, levirate marriage, concubinage, slavery and the treatment of women as property. Clearly, twentieth century Christians have made choices regarding a normative Christian sexual ethic, but these decisions have not been made solely, simply or explicitly on scriptural grounds."

This nation was founded on Freedom of Religion...No where in the Constitution does it say the Catholic Church, Luthern Church, or Atheist for that matter.

Gio my friend, Shall I question what you do in your bedroom Some people might find that unnatural. I would love to ask