Poll: Would you attend a gay marriage/civil union ceremony, and support the couple as if hetero?

[twa]

Because they are your friend.

Hypothetical:

Say I was gay and we were close friends, grew up together, went through grade school and college together, partied many a night (in a non homosexual manner). I'd expect you to be at my gay wedding. I'd understand your reservations but I'd also want you to come and support my decision. As a close friend of mine, if you declined, I'd certainly be upset.

Friends don't ask friends to go against their convictions

I have both friends and family that are gay,they know to leave me mine and I leave them theirs.

Doing otherwise would be akin to me asking them to pretend not to be gay.(which I also will probably never do)

Tolerance is a two way street if done right.

[NewCliche21]

Then again, wouldn't a close friend know your feelings about the matter, and, how important they are to you?

Whose feelings/beliefs are more "important"?

Friends don't ask friends to go against their convictions

I have both friends and family that are gay,they know to leave me mine and I leave them theirs.

Doing otherwise would be akin to me asking them to pretend not to be gay.(which I also will probably never do)

Tolerance is a two way street if done right.

Do you guys have a problem with racism, xenophobia, sexism, agism, cults, Satanists, etc.? If so, then why? It's their beliefs. You can't say that your beliefs are more important than theirs if you want to play that card.

[Spanky22]

Of course I would. Gay love is no different than straight love, except for what they do with their body parts when I'm not around, which makes no difference to me.

I'd be there in a heartbeat, just like I would for any of my straight friends who were getting married.

[Ax]

Do you guys have a problem with racism, xenophobia, sexism, agism, cults, Satanists, etc.? If so, then why? It's their beliefs. You can't say that your beliefs are more important than theirs if you want to play that card.

For me, no, I don't. As long as they're willing to suffer the consequences of their actions, at no additional cost to me.

[NewCliche21]

For me, no, I don't. As long as they're willing to suffer the consequences of their actions, at no additional cost to me.

Consequences for what actions? Being attracted to someone? Being in love?

Same that the Jewish people were to suffer? Women? Blacks? Christians in the beginning? I guess that they all deserved that.

[Bang]

On a side note, one cool thing about being 46 is that all of your friends who get married are doing it for the 2nd or 3rd time. Most of them realize what a waste of money a big huge wedding is after their first one, and do it in a small civil ceremony, which means i don't have to go.

~Bang

[Ax]

Consequences for what actions?

If a racist wants to call a black person a ******, he should be allowed to. When the black person knocks his ****ing teeth out, he should accept it.

And so on...

[NewCliche21]

If a racist wants to call a black person a ******, he should be allowed to. When the black person knocks his ****ing teeth out, he should accept it.

And so on...

So you endorse racism and physical violence, which is the interpretation by al Qaeda and Hamas since non-Muslims (read: you, your church, your family, etc.) are evil and must be killed or wiped off the face of the Earth?

Just making sure that you understand the precedent that you're setting.

[Ax]

So you endorse racism and physical violence, which is the interpretation by al Qaeda and Hamas since non-Muslims (read: you, your church, your family, etc.) are evil and must be killed or wiped off the face of the Earth?

Just making sure that you understand the precedent that you're setting.

Again, people are free to choose how they live. But, actions have consequences, and they will answer for their decisions.

Nice leap, BTW. I didn't realize I was a homophobic terrorist.

Feel better about yourself now, Skippy?

[twa]

For me, no, I don't. As long as they're willing to suffer the consequences of their actions, at no additional cost to me.

Agreed...as long as they limit it to not harming others.

I've known a number of racists,sexists and Satanists ect over the yrs

Some ,just like gays,even have redeeming qualities.

The youngun needs to work on his tolerance issues:ols:

[Special K]

Christ did associate Himself with prostitutes, tax collectors, and people who led less than stellar lifestyles to show that He did in fact love all. I wonder if given how times are now He would choose to associate with homosexuals, liberals , and Dallas Cowboys fans to show that same compassion.

Christ associating Himself and befriending the worst of the worst (tax collectors) as well as prostitutes, thieves, etc. is always what I think of in these types of debates. I prefer His method of displaying compassion pover the method of shunning someone.

And by the way, your theoretical question about if He would hang out with liberals and Cowboys fans...now THAT I don't know

[Tweedr01]

Fair enough. For the record though, I'm not attacking anyone's religion. I see no difference between not attending a gay wedding and not attending a wedding where you don't care for one of the two who will be wed (ie: guy is an a hole, girl is a fluzy). Realistically, the ceremony will probably be less than 30 minutes. It's the reception that everyone comes for.

It's a celebration of two individuals lasting love for each other. Even if I think the act of gay is being gross (I do), I'm not going to miss one of the most important parts of my friend's life. To me, that's part of being a good friend. Through thick and thin.

That's just me though. I was mainly asking because I just find it odd that somebody would choose to miss a wedding of a close friend, something that is truly important to them.

Thank you for clarifying, it was more the way you said everything and this better shows what you were trying to get across. I can appreciate the fact that two people love each other, but if I did have a friend who was gay and getting married I'd hope they could appreciate that my love for God supersedes them. Again, a point was brought up that Jesus associated with people who were considered sinners in His day, so I'm not sure what He would do in this day and age. It may be good for me to go to this just to show that yes I do love my friends, but I would not want to celebrate something that goes against my faith. I just don't know where the middle ground would be for something like this.

[renaissance]

I don't see how you could geniunely continue being friends with someone if you don't support something that's such a big part of their life.

If you choose not to attend the wedding, are you also going to choose not to continue associating with the couple once they're married?

[twa]

Christ associating Himself and befriending the worst of the worst (tax collectors) as well as prostitutes, thieves, etc. is always what I think of in these types of debates. I prefer His method of displaying compassion pover the method of shunning someone.

And by the way, your theoretical question about if He would hang out with liberals and Cowboys fans...now THAT I don't know

The flaw I see in that is that I see no instance of Christ endorsing or participating in a event that would seem to endorse their actions.(with the possible exception of the rend unto Caesar bit and thievery:silly:)

I do agree with your assertion they should not be shunned,as doing so is counterproductive.

But attending a event specific to objectionable behavior is simply too far in my estimation

[Zguy28]

The flaw I see in that is that I see no instance of Christ endorsing or participating in a event that would seem to endorse their actions.(with the possible exception of the rend unto Caesar bit and thievery:silly:)

I do agree with your assertion they should not be shunned,as doing so is counterproductive.

But attending a event specific to objectionable behavior is simply too far in my estimation

Nor do we see Christ joining in a celebration of something that is a frankly a mockery of something that is sacred to God.

[NewCliche21]

Agreed...as long as they limit it to not harming others.

I've known a number of racists,sexists and Satanists ect over the yrs

Some ,just like gays,even have redeeming qualities.

The youngun needs to work on his tolerance issues:ols:

All of those people are people. I'm not white; I'm a person who is white. I'm not a Redskins fan; I'm a person who likes the Redskins. People are not defined by one characteristic. You wouldn't know that most people are gay because you, like pretty much everyone, assumes that they're straight.

Again, people are free to choose how they live. But, actions have consequences, and they will answer for their decisions.

Nice leap, BTW. I didn't realize I was a homophobic terrorist.

Feel better about yourself now, Skippy?

1) Skippy reduced fat, jerk. Tony Horton would be pissed if he thought that I was using regular! :pfft:

2) At least you're consistent with your thoughts, even if I vehemently disagree.

3) As far as I know, you're not a terrorist, though your actions are textbook homophobia. I'm letting you know what kind of slippery slope you're on.

Again, I don't judge people based on one thing. A person is her/his whole, not one specific characterisitc.

[NewCliche21]

Nor do we see Christ joining in a celebration of something that is a frankly a mockery of something that is sacred to God.

I think that you guys need to get a better definition of "mockery." Mockery needs intent. I'd be willing to bet that most gay couples couldn't care less about what your interpretation of G-d's word is, and their actions are independent of G-d's view.

I didn't go out and say "G-d dammit!" 12 times this season because He forbids it; I did it because the ****ing Redskins lost. That difference is important.

[twa]

All of those people are people. I'm not white; I'm a person who is white. I'm not a Redskins fan; I'm a person who likes the Redskins. People are not defined by one characteristic. You wouldn't know that most people are gay because you, like pretty much everyone, assumes that they're straight.

I suppose there is a point in there somewhere specific to SSM?

A SSM ceremony is defined by one characteristic in my eyes....call it what you wish,but I look thru my own eyes.

I would be lying if I said I didn't think less of gays,but my bias is not limited to them....I don't approve of many people.

[The Evil Genius]

Nor do we see Christ joining in a celebration of something that is a frankly a mockery of something that is sacred to God.

According to who? Marriages have been around longer than your religion.

That is, unless, your religion comes directly from Mesopotamia.

[NewCliche21]

I suppose there is a point in there somewhere specific to SSM?

A SSM ceremony is defined by one characteristic in my eyes....call it what you wish,but I look thru my own eyes.

I would be lying if I said I didn't think less of gays,but my bias is not limited to them....I don't approve of many people.

Well, I mean, then it's hard for me to take your views as anything but out of touch and of a different era.

To think that you are better than anyone else, especially for things that don't affect you, is disappointing to say the least.

[The Evil Genius]

Here is the irony of modern day religion defining who can or cannot get married.

For the majority of the time in which modern day religions have co-opted marriage, marriages were rarely about love. They were usually a business agreement between two families.

[Tweedr01]

Nor do we see Christ joining in a celebration of something that is a frankly a mockery of something that is sacred to God.

In fact I believe the only time Jesus became angry was when the church was used as a market, thus making a mockery of something that is sacred to His Father. He may be compassionate to those considered sinners, in fact we all are sinners, but I just do not think He would endorse something that He has already laid out as unnacceptable.

Also, I can be friends with someone who is gay and not like their lifestyle choice. Much like I can have friends who smoke pot, I don't, but it's not going to keep me from being friends with them.

And NewCliche.....reaching a bit are we?

[Sticksboi05]

It still boggles me (as a confirmed churchgoer for 19 years and counting) that people actually use some book written thousands of years ago after all the events "happened" with various sources and various "translations" to justify why gay marriage is a sin. Now, we all have the right to our opinions, and that is 100% OK regardless.

Also, looking down on people that we have no idea how they got that way is a little humorous also.

[Ax]

1) Skippy reduced fat, jerk. Tony Horton would be pissed if he thought that I was using regular! :pfft:

Pheeeeew! At least I got the Skippy part right. I almost said Peter Pan.

2) At least you're consistent with your thoughts, even if I vehemently disagree.

Being consistent is not just good for peanut butter.

3) As far as I know, you're not a terrorist, though your actions are textbook homophobia. I'm letting you know what kind of slippery slope you're on.

I'm not a terrorist, but I am an extremist in many ways.

The problem I have with the word, homophobia, is that it suggests fear of homosexuality. I realize it's use is to somehow try to shame people who won't acknowledge the lifestyle as, normal, or acceptable, into changing ones beliefs to suit theirs. But nothing could be further from the truth. I don't fear homosexuals. There is no "phobia". But again, I understand why the term was invented.

Again, I don't judge people based on one thing. A person is her/his whole, not one specific characterisitc.

Agreed. Though some things are harder to overlook, than others. And we all get to choose which ones we personally find easier, or harder, to overlook.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

only if they served good food