what do you guys think about gay marriage??

[BlueStar]

It matters because marriage should be a religious rite only.

Wait, so if I get married to my girlfriend in secular ceremony in a registry office rather than a church, am I not allowed to call myself married?

What about religions, current or future, which believe gay people should be allowed to marry? How come the religious rite of that church isn't held in equal regard by the law?

Marriage is older than Christianity and probably older than religion, how come religion, or rather certain religions, are allowed to hijack the word?

QUOTEMarriage as a practice is not a right, and therefore, I would not be depriving anyone of their rights if marriage is a religious exclusive. However, because the practice is now tied to having rights, society's definition of marriage extremely outrageous. It's one of the very reasons the separation of church and state is clearly defined. Now because of the current definition, telling gays that they cannot marry is wrong because it denies certain right that everyone else has. You follow me? I'm not a gay hater, but someone who thinks government has misinterpreted such an issue from the very beginning and it needs to be rectified.

So do you concede that as long as marriage is recognised by the state, homosexuals MUST have the same right to marry, even as you push for the State to refuse to acknowledge the religious side of the union?

 

[koimayeul]

Oh that's cute, how do you know I don't believe in Christ. Never once did I say don't believe in Christ. You have respect for your beliefs in your church. Here though, I don't want to civil union someone, nor do I want a Domestic Partnership. I want to get married. And as slow as it will take even Texas will be forced to marry same sex couples may not be now, may not be in 5 years, but I believe with in 10-15 years Texas will be marrying gay couples, so I would probably. And I kinda love how you ask for your beliefs to be respected, when you're saying I'm going to be eternally damned. Ha Ha, are you joking?

chill and smile hehe you misread him he exactly said that he dont blame you for ur choices.. no one does!! its personnal and ur own decision, cant touch this

 

[Veho]

It matters because marriage should be a religious rite only.

Why? The institution of marriage predates all existing religions, and is primarily a social arrangement, not a religious ritual. And while individual religions and churches have the right to define the religious rites related to marriage, they can't impose their definitions to the rest of society. Because according to that definition, atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

 

[smile72]

koimayeul, I know what he said. I just had a minor bit of anger trapped. On an unrelated note I have surpassed you in post!!!!!

 

[BlueStar]

Wait, hang on, one more thought - if the government stops giving benefits for 'marriage' and instead opts for a recognised civil partnership approach, seperate from the religious/whatever-type-of-ceremony-you-want bit, how can you even legislate what is called marriage, when it's basically being taken out of the state system and legislature anyway?

What do you do when a gay couple get their civil partnership confirmed, go to a hotel, a liberal christian church, the church of elvis or wherever, do a ceremony and say they're married? Ban them from using that word? Have your church start a lawsuit saying they own the copyright of the word marriage and to cease and disist using that word when referring to their partnership?

Again, some denominations don't think you can remarry after divorce - who decides which definition of marriage is right between those two views?

 

[smile72]

Or even better when Utah's FLDS starts allowing 14 year old girls to be legally married, as the state will no longer have control over marriage, men can have as many wives as they want, regardless of age.

 

[Sterling]

Oh that's cute, how do you know I don't believe in Christ. Never once did I say don't believe in Christ. You have respect for your beliefs in your church. Here though, I don't want to civil union someone, nor do I want a Domestic Partnership. I want to get married. And as slow as it will take even Texas will be forced to marry same sex couples may not be now, may not be in 5 years, but I believe with in 10-15 years Texas will be marrying gay couples, so I would probably. And I kinda love how you ask for your beliefs to be respected, when you're saying I'm going to be eternally damned. Ha Ha, are you joking?
I'm saying that it is my belief you will be, if indeed you have not accepted Christ as you lord and savior. I'm also not saying what I believe in is socially, or morally acceptable by todays standards. I'm asking for respect in that marriage be considered second to what is accepted by the state. Making a Christan union a choice, not a right.

It matters because marriage should be a religious rite only.

Wait, so if I get married to my girlfriend in secular ceremony in a registry office rather than a church, am I not allowed to call myself married?

What about religions, current or future, which believe gay people should be allowed to marry? How come the religious rite of that church isn't held in equal regard by the law?

Marriage is older than Christianity and probably older than religion, how come religion, or rather certain religions, are allowed to hijack the word?

QUOTE

Marriage as a practice is not a right, and therefore, I would not be depriving anyone of their rights if marriage is a religious exclusive. However, because the practice is now tied to having rights, society's definition of marriage extremely outrageous. It's one of the very reasons the separation of church and state is clearly defined. Now because of the current definition, telling gays that they cannot marry is wrong because it denies certain right that everyone else has. You follow me? I'm not a gay hater, but someone who thinks government has misinterpreted such an issue from the very beginning and it needs to be rectified.

So do you concede that as long as marriage is recognised by the state, homosexuals MUST have the same right to marry, even as you push for the State to refuse to acknowledge the religious side of the union?

Yes, but the document you have that states which union you have will be more specific.

You misunderstand me. I do not suggest I have anything against these sorts of unions. I am unhappy with the title that is currently sought after. Society as a whole cannot differentiate different meanings because traditionally marriage is a religious custom. Society doesn't understand that there can be something else.

I do concede if the documentation and general attitude of society changes.

Religion is one of the very reasons Humanity has been around for so long. Religion is the core of Humanity. Regardless of present "revelations", logic and precise meaning has only take root in the last 10 centuries. Even Neanderthals had a ritualistic tendency, which suggested a religious belief.

@Above: State run Marriage will be fully enforced no different than it already is. If you are married after you apply for domestic partnership under any means, the paperwork and documentation will be updated to reflect such changes. Also, such things as divorce restrictions should not be held up by law in the courts. The church has no business in the courts.

 

[smile72]

Eventually most of the world will be irreligious. Religious belief is falling in many countries such as Japan, the People's Republic of China, numerous European countries.

 

[koimayeul]

koimayeul, I know what he said. I just had a minor bit of anger trapped. On an unrelated note I have surpassed you in post!!!!!

its normal because its touching to your core beliefs, just like me getting angry to see the old argument church=homophobic with no further thinking and understanding

to me the roman/catholic church rite of marriage is the seal of an union between a man and a woman, along with god's blessing
homosexuals and ppl not from that confession are denied that because of bible principles and the pope position, that just how it is!!

if anyone thinks its wrong they are free to chose another religion or church denomination to marry them, no question asked
i see no problem really.. and you can perfectly be christian and homosexual just dont get pissed over the priest and pope not interceding for god's blessing, i guess!!


edit : oh and nice count of posts dude keep it up

 

[koimayeul]

Or even better when Utah's FLDS starts allowing 14 year old girls to be legally married, as the state will no longer have control over marriage, men can have as many wives as they want, regardless of age.

thats sick!!

 

[smile72]

Oh I don't care about the religious part of it, I'm going to have to say this as more places allow gay marriage, the Roman Catholic will be scrutinized even more. Eventually even they will have to validate gay wedding. It will happen no matter what. Just like how LDS, had to admit black people were not cursed by god.

 

[smile72]

koimayeul That's why I don't want churches having control of marriage without government watching over them.

 

[BlueStar]

@Above: State run Marriage will be fully enforced no different than it already is. If you are married after you apply for domestic partnership under any means, the paperwork and documentation will be updated to reflect such changes. Also, such things as divorce restrictions should not be held up by law in the courts. The church has no business in the courts.

But again, if a church, or any other organisation, calls their joining ceremonies marriage, how would you stop them and why would you want to? If you think you're 'married' because you've taken part in a ceremony in front of the Biblical God, and I think you're not because it doesn't have the blessing of Zeus, but I'm married because mine did, the government only considers that we're both officially partnered, then firstly what can we do about it and secondly why should either of us care?

 

[Foxi4]

Everything depends on what you mean by "marriage" IMO.

If you mean a legal union between two people based on partnership for inherritence and tax purposes, go on ahead and marry in whatever combinations you want.

If you mean a union with a religious background, then it depends on your religion. If you happen to be a Catholic, don't demand marriage - Catholicism doesn't allow homosexual marriage and that's *it*. You're free to change your religion if you really want to.

If you wanted to start off a *real* discussion, then let's talk about "adoption by homosexual couples", that's a way "fresher" subject. Gay marriage is sooo 20th century.

 

[BlueStar]

Ok, I'm completely in favour of homosexual couples being given the same adoption rigths as heterosexual couples. The child should go to the best home, the race, religion and sexuality of the parents should be irrelevant.

 

[koimayeul]

Everything depends on what you mean by "marriage" IMO.

If you mean a legal union between two people based on partnership for inherritence and tax purposes, go on ahead and marry in whatever combinations you want.

If you mean a union with a religious background, then it depends on your religion. If you happen to be a Catholic, don't demand marriage - Catholicism doesn't allow homosexual marriage and that's *it*. You're free to change your religion if you really want to.

If you wanted to start off a *real* discussion, then let's talk about "adoption by homosexual couples", that's a way "fresher" subject. Gay marriage is sooo 20th century.

thx for understanding the dilemma sir and pointing that out clearly

 

[smile72]

Why would we need to discuss adoption? That has no religious pretense, children are in no danger of being hurt by most gay and lesbian couples. You're just a bigot if you don't support that.

 

[koimayeul]

Ok, I'm completely in favour of homosexual couples being given the same adoption rigths as heterosexual couples. The child should go to the best home, the race, religion and sexuality of the parents should be irrelevant.

of course

 

[Foxi4]

Ok, I'm completely in favour of homosexual couples being given the same adoption rigths as heterosexual couples. The child should go to the best home, the race, religion and sexuality of the parents should be irrelevant.

And I'm againts. Let me be clear hear - I'm not a homophobe in any way. I just believe that children in general tend to mimic their parents behaviour to a certain extent. Until they reach a certain level of maturity, they will clone behavioral patterns and some of them are hard-coded into the mind. A homosexual couple is *not* a family unit. A man and a woman is a family unit. It's just simple like that for me.

QUOTEWhy would we need to discuss adoption? That has no religious pretense, children are in no danger of being hurt by most gay and lesbian couples. You're just a bigot if you don't support that.

No biggotry involved. Just years and years of discoveries in behavioral patterns done by hundreds of psychologists.

 

[BlueStar]

So what if they mimic their parents? And every homosexual was born out of a heterosexual relationship, that doesn't seem to ahev made them straight.