Now you're back to reason. I never said they weren't what we would consider 'married'; my point is that claiming some religious protection for the term 'marriage', as though it is somehow sacred, is a crock of, well, you know. . . .Strike the 'intention of God' bit - not everyone believes in such a being. You are left with society, and different societies have different practices. Some do not practice any sort of 'marriage' at all, some do not see homosexuality as any sort of 'sin'; all you are left with is modern western society and those similar to it. So even that argument is specious at best.
No it isn't. Your argument, as I understand it, is that Christians are wrong to insist on protecting the word "marriage." That's your opinion, but it is not based on reason. It is perfectly logical for me to insist on protecting the institution of marriage as a sacred rite - whether someone else believes as I do or not. Whether there is a specific prohibition on the use of that word in the Bible (or Latter Day Scripture, since you bring it up) is irrelevent.
<<Which only matters to Jews (Mosaic law) or Christians, and those influenced by them.>>
Who, in turn, are the ones making the argument, which therefore renders your logic circular and pointless. I get that gays disagree with me. I'm on board with the concept.
<<There you're wrong. 'Thou shalt not steal' is a definite prohibition against theft. 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' is a definite prohibition against lying. There is no definite prohibition against calling a same sex union a marriage. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Since there is no definite prohibition of the act, what is to prevent it?>>
I'm not wrong, you are making a strawman argument. There is no specific prohibition against speeding or drunk driving either. Are you arguing that such things are OK according to the bible? Your argument is not even relevent to the issue.
I think you misunderstand the position that Christians like myself take. (And I speak here, of course, only for me.) The issue is not whether God, the Bible, or our church leaders prohibit the word "marriage " from use. We are not concerned about the word, but about the institution.
I do NOT in any way approve of homosexual behavior. I do not approve of gays getting "civil unions" either. All of these things are wrong to me. I do, however, recognize the nature of American society and government. Since there are perfectly valid arguments for allowing gay people to do whatever they please I am willing to COMPROMISE by accepting and legally honoring a social contract which gives them all of the LEGAL RIGHTS afforded a married couple. UNDER US LAW gays should get equal treatment. Under God's law, however, that is not the case. God made that one up, not James Madison, John Marshal or Barak Obama. MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. Free association is. Gays have no right to be accepted any more than Mormons do. Gays do NOT have a right to be married any more than they have to be baptized, receive communion or be ordained to the priesthood. There is absolutely NO right, under any law including God's, to receive a sacrament without being worthy of it. Morally that is the province of God and legally it is the province of the church. Most churches deny communion to non-members. As a Latter Day Saint, I would never walk into a Catholic Church and expect to take communion. I could not, as a Latter Day Saint, become a Baptist preacher. But if Baptists get to vote, so should Mormons. If Methodists can build a church in my neighborhood, Catholics should have that same right.
The crux of the COMPROMISE Christian-American argument accepting the possibility of civil union (whether for gays alone or for everybody) is that, while people should have equal rights under US law, ecclesiastical law is completely different, has the right to discriminate and is NOT subject to courts, legislatures or popular opinion. We also claim, and intend to continue to exercise, the right to express our opinions, vote our conscience and try to mold a society that conforms to our standards. Gays, atheists, Wiccans and Libertarians have exactly the same right, and if more people agree with them than with me, I have to live with the consequence. I will, however, strive to win the issue or go down fighting, just as I expect the other side to do.
So your argument about the word "marriage" in the Bible is a non-issue. It doesn't mean a thing. Many Christians will, and probably should, take a hard line against ANY officially sanctioned homosexual union. But if there must be accomodation made for gays, there is room for compromise on this issue. Gays who insist that "marriage" must be allowed rather than just civil unions, wish to style the mainstream as extreme in this issue. But it is they who are in fact the extremists. With the Vermont ruling that makes civil unions unconstitutional, there is yet more reason to see the sense to removing the religious issue entirely by making ALL marriages civil unions under the law. Those who disapprove of gays getting the same LEGAL rights as Heterosexuals will just have to deal with it. I also object to businesses being open on Sundays, but I'm not going to get much headway on that issue. But gays who insist that they have the same right to ecclesiastical benefits as straights are going to have to take it up with God, or at least their church. If the God Loves Gays Universal Church of Really Really Close Brotherhood wants to marry gays and the Baptists don't - the government has no business interfering with either.
