Gay Marriage

[Amby 0]

Im really not looking to debate on this, but feel free to post your own views and comments.. Ive debated it so much everywhere I go that I'd really like to just get all my anger out at once. LOL.I'm getting really sick of people trying to play God in America. It happens everyday, with a lot of the issues we face.. Ban this, legalize this, etc etc. God is always an issue.. But hey, lets stick to the subject at hand.. Gay Marriage..Im bisexual, and if I ever happen to find a beatiful inteligent lady that I love and care deeply for.. I'd like to think that, just like any other human being (i am still human, no matter what sex I am attracted to), I would be allowed to vow my everlasting love to her by means of marriage. People argue that it is a sin for two people of the same sex to marry, or to love each other, or to have sexual relations with one another.. They say.. The bible says this, the bible says that..News Flash! The Bible was written by man.. Every man is a sinner.. So how do you know the words in that bible were not written to attempt to manipulate people into believing their views are right? How can you be, for certain, that those words are the words of God. He didnt write that bible, men wrote that bible, and no matter how good a person is.. They will always be a sinner. No one is perfect.. Also.. Who are you to play God? If how I live my life is not right by God, let me deal with the consquences of my actions when my time comes. I dont need anyone to tell me how to live my life.. I dont need anyone telling me what is right or wrong.. All of these people who are against gay marriage.. Well.. Just like the men who wrote the bible, they too are sinners. I wish people would start concentrating on their own actions rather than dwelling on what I do in my personal life. I dont go around telling others how to live their lives.. I concentrate on ME. I try to better myself, not everyone else. I'll let God deal with others when their time comes!I suppose in a way I do try to change others though.. I mean I do in this sense.. I'd like to be treated like anyone else.. Just because I am attracted to people of the same sex does not mean I am inhuman. I still have emotions, feelings, etc. I'd like to be treated as if I do..Anywho.. I think I'm done.. Huggles,Amby

[biscuitrat 0]

I feel the same way. Marriage isn't about God - It's about love. Governments should have no say in what people think and do. It's just not their place. Can you stop love from striking? It's just another "act against God" to all those stupid politicians. If I were on the board (which I'm not) I would argue for it. People should have a choice about who they love. With all the people getting sex changes and falling in love within their own sex, don't you think the government should adapt to it instead of covering it up? What government is ashamed of its own people so much that it'll hide relationships between them to "save face". Yet another reason I hate being young with no say in anything. So many of my friends and those I don't know deserve better. They're little more than prisoners with a broken heart. This shouldn't be.And no offense, but I don't really like the Bible. I'm Hindu and I look through it. Psalms and psalms and psalms. No dates, no real proof. For all we know, the people in it could be false. This is true of all ancient religious books. You don't know who wrote it, but it becomes the basis of so much.

[webaurores 0]

i'm agreed with both of you.who has the right to say that gay marriege is wrong.you know... everyone is free 'till you reach others' freedom, and if I was be gay, I should be to get married with my friend, because we wouldn't bother anybody having the same gender and getting married as they'd be our lifes.i mean, it's like i didn't let marry someone because you both have blue eyes.this and the others taboos, just take the everyone's freedom

[no9t9 0]

Marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN. If this is changed, it wouldn't be marriage anymore. I have no problem with gays getting the same legal rights as a married couple, just don't call it marriage... because its not. Changing the definition would be a bastardization of what its original meaning was. That's like saying, well... I want to be legally known as a girl (I'm a guy). Why? Because I am human and I should have the same rights as a girl. Because I want to use the girls change room. Because I want to collect scholarships for women. Because I want to play womens sports. And so on. A female and a male have been defined by our society (and law). Why even have gender definitions?? Why not change everything to refer to "human" rather than female and male? That would make everything fair and equal.Marriage was originally a RELIGIOUS ceremony defined as being between a MAN and a WOMAN. Part of our rights and freedoms is being able to practice any religion we like. The church says gay marriages are not acceptable. That is part of the religious beliefs that people are FREE to have. You are asking for a law that FORCES people to CHANGE their religious system. So, how can you ask for a right to marriage that will stomp on someone elses rights to practice free religion? Isn't that a bit selfish and a bit ironic? You would ask for a right that, if granted, would take away someone elses.This is the exact reason why marriage should not be allowed for gays. They can LEGALLY be joined and have all the same LEGAL rights as marriage. That would be fair. But to FORCE the church to ACCEPT gay marriage is unconstitutional. It violates what the free world stands for.Finally, what if a brother and sister wanted to get married? According to you, they are both humans.. there should be nothing wrong. In fact, you talk about it being love... well between a brother and sister there has to be even more love, being brother and sister and lovers at the same time... so much love... it MUST be acceptable.

[Caveman 0]

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I have a problem with people who have a problem with gay marriage :Dno9t9, I agree with you when you say marriage was originally a religious ceremony. However, like Christmas and Easter, it has become Americanized, and is now considered more of a SOCIAL event more than anything else. Indeed, such a process can be damaging to the intended purpose of such a ceremony, but we cannot direct our anger at what happens at the surface. We have to tackle the problem at its roots, trying to reverse the commercial motivation behind these notions. Gay marriage is only a bi-product of this, and thus, it is unfair to point the finger at those individuals in our society. Everyone is at fault here, in my opinion. The beautiful meaning of marriage itself has been lost in the hogwash of consumerism and high society. Until we can correct this, I feel that we must honor gay marriage and appreciate the dignity needed to complete it. After all, their love is probably more genuine than 90% of the current marriages out there...

[bjrn 0]

Marriage was originally a  RELIGIOUS ceremony defined as being between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Yes, was. Many people who get married don't go to a church anymore.

 

Christianity can't claim ownership of marriage. I wouldn't mind if, say, the catholic church said that they won't be marrying same sex couples and that their god will crush the skulls of their enemies' babies, it's all in their bible. But marriage is common good now, and it's not for any church to decide what does and what does not go.

[JaVe 0]

In my opinion, marriage between two sexes (homosexual) is unnatural, in the sense of making babies it isn't but i have no problem with it. What's this america says of separation of church and state? These people always drag their religion into it sayin it was not meant to be. What if you feel happy with another man or woman, why should you not commit yourselves to them? It may be unnatural but that is only in terms of sex, adopt a child if you want children. I am heterosexual yet i think that any sex should be able to marry anyone, i actually don't believ in marriage, it was created by religion and i think that, if you can get along with someone, you can move in with them and have children end of story. Im a male but i still see no reason why a woman has to adopt the man's surname? I'm for homosexual marriages; whatever makes you happy right?

[no9t9 0]

After all, their love is probably more genuine than 90% of the current marriages out there...

I was thinking about Christmas when I typed my first post but didn't put it in. Christmas is not "Americanized", it has changed because of all these stupid tree huggers who have too much time on their hands demanding that everything be politically correct. Christmas is not even Christmas anymore. You can't even say "Merry Christmas" now because it will offend someone. You have to say "Happy Holidays". Politically correct talk is stupid. A garbage man is a garbage man... he is not a *BLEEP*ing sanitation engineer.

 

The root of the problem is commercialization?? Gay marriage is not a byproduct of the commercialization of marriage. That's ridiculous. This is about gays wanting equal rights. And who's pointing the finger? Nobody is saying gays are the reason marriage is now commercialized. What are you talking about? What does commercialization of marriage have to do with gays? Please...

 

Love has nothing to do with marriage (legally). I ask the question again. What if a brother and sister want to get married because they love each other? Hell, why not mother and daughter? Nothing stronger than a mothers love. According to you, this should be allowed. What's wrong with it? Apparently, I don't know because marriage is about love and marriage is a "common good" now (see below).

 

But marriage is common good now, and it's not for any church to decide what does and what does not go.

50771[/snapback]

That is the point. People (and you) are saying that it is not for the church to decide. I think it is. How can you support a law that would essentially FORCE someone to go against their religious beliefs? If a law is made that gay marriage is the same as "regular" marriage, then churchs would not have the choice or they would be breaking the law. This is unconstitutional. You cannot force someone to do something against their religion.

 

And yes, I know many people get married outside of a church. What if some gays want to get married IN a church? What you don't seem to understand is that once the law is made that gays must be allowed to get married, a church will not have the legal right to refuse. So what do you suggest about religious rights of those who don't want gay marriage in their church? I say it is not for you or anyone else to decide how I practice my religion.

 

--

Also, please don't just pick one line and try to argue with that. It doesn't work. I have not really said anything new in this post. You simply are arguing with me using points already being discussed AND addressed...

[Caveman 0]

I'm saying that the commercialization has caused marriage to be something that it's not supposed to be. The intended meaning of the unity of a man and woman under religious circumstances has been lost. Religion is no longer a factor. And with that, everything else comes crashing down. People no longer marry for love, they marry for power. They marry because they want to secure their place in society. Look at all of these damn reality TV shows. Who wants to marry a millionaire? Give me a break...Face it, tying the knot is not what it used to be, and IMO, commercialization has a huge part in that, which indirectly causes issues like gay marriage to be brought up. Think of how gipped a gay couple must feel when they see a man and a woman marry for reasons other than love, while they legally can't despite the fact that their love is genuine.

[bjrn 0]

And yes, I know many people get married outside of a church.  What if some gays want to get married IN a church?  What you don't seem to understand is that once the law is made that gays must be allowed to get married, a church will not have the legal right to refuse.  So what do you suggest about religious rights of those who don't want gay marriage in their church?  I say it is not for you or anyone else to decide how I practice my religion.

Let me just pick on that, okay?
I should perhaps have added that I don't think the church should have any special position at all. So it would be something like: Law dictates who can and cannot get married. Then you have civil cervants who can marry people. And then they can act out whatever religious/other ceremony they want. The ceremony should however in no way be connected to the legal state of marriage.

And if there are two men who want to have a ceremony in church, well that is their problem. They can see if they can find a church who will allow them to hold their own ceremony, but whether they can find a church or not, their ability to get married should not be affected.

[no9t9 0]

Let me just pick on that, okay?

 

I should perhaps have added that I don't think the church should have any special position at all. So it would be something like: Law dictates who can and cannot get married. Then you have civil cervants who can marry people. And then they can act out whatever religious/other ceremony they want. The ceremony should however in no way be connected to the legal state of marriage.

 

And if there are two men who want to have a ceremony in church, well that is their problem. They can see if they can find a church who will allow them to hold their own ceremony, but whether they can find a church or not, their ability to get married should not be affected.

50831[/snapback]

Read my first post. I have already discussed this point. In that post, I suggest that gays should LEGALLY be allowed to be "joined" and have all the same LEGAL rights as a married couple. I am not arguing this point. The problem is that when you say gays should be allowed to get MARRIED.. there is a religious context involved with that word.

 

If the law says that gays are allowed to get MARRIED, then a church would not have the legal right to deny a gay couple's request to be married in that church. Do you understand my point? If gays are allowed to get MARRIED, then they can sue a church if the gay couple were denied. So, in effect... the law would FORCE something that my religion finds offensive. In other words, by enacting a law allowing gay MARRIAGES, I am no longer allowed to practice my religious belief.

 

Now, if the law were to state that gays can be JOINED. That is a different story. A union or joining is NOT MARRIAGE under the law. In that case, a church COULD deny access.

 

Because of this point, the church is not given a "special" position. They are simply allowed to practice their religion without governments telling them how to do it.

 

As for civil servents, there are already many that are not related to any religion who have the power to marry people. Use those people, I don't care. As long as you don't call it a MARRIAGE and you don't affect the practices of a religious group.

 

--

I still haven't said anything new here and neither have you. Just more detail now...

--

 

 

I'm saying that the commercialization has caused marriage to be something that it's not supposed to be. The intended meaning of the unity of a man and woman under religious circumstances has been lost. Religion is no longer a factor. And with that, everything else comes crashing down. People no longer marry for love, they marry for power. They marry because they want to secure their place in society. Look at all of these damn reality TV shows. Who wants to marry a millionaire? Give me a break...Face it, tying the knot is not what it used to be, and IMO, commercialization has a huge part in that, which indirectly causes issues like gay marriage to be brought up.

LOL, commercialization did not cause a break down in the religious or sanctity of marriage. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, kings used to marry off their daughters to other kingdoms in order to gain allies.. How is this different than marrying for money. Are you telling me commercialization was around back then?

 

Yes, getting married is not what it used to be. But, it is certainly not caused by commercialization. Marriage looks different now because of the numerous hodge podge of cultures that you see in North America and even in Europe. If you goto China, Thailand, India, etc. they are traditional marriages. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It will look even more weird if gays are allowed to marry.

 

I still don't understand how commercialization is a direct or indirect cause of the gay marriages issue. Especially since commercialization isn't even a factor. The "cause" of this issue, is the fact that gays are now more acceptable in society and they are now coming out and ASKING (or demanding) that they be allowed to get married. They regard it as unfair and they think they should have a right to it. It's really simple. Don't reach so far... the answer really isn't that hard. Gay marriage has nothing to do with commercialization

 

Think of how gipped a gay couple must feel when they see a man and a woman marry for reasons other than love, while they legally can't despite the fact that their love is genuine.

Why do you keep writing about love, etc.??? I've already put forth a response regarding this point. Repeating your previous post doesn't constitute a reply or a discussion.

 

Again, love has nothing to do with marriage legally. If all those in love should be allowed to get married... you would have tons of problems. Again, brother/sister? how about father/son? How about paligamy? you gonna support a law for all those? Please.. don't repeat the love arguement again until you've got something new to say.

[Caveman 0]

I don't think the legal status of a relationship would affect how a brother/sister or father/son feel about each other. Does the fact that they cannot be legally married have any impact on how they feel about each other? I think not. And it won't stop any of the problems you mentioned from occuring, either. The only difference is the title.You've already acknowledged that the meaning of marriage has distengrated to some degree. No matter what happens, it merely constitutes a title, because the religious context by which it was originally initiated has since vanished. And if that's all it boils down to, what's wrong with allowing these couples to hold that title?

[talbotda13 0]

i dont know if i support or if i am against gay marriage.however if someone truely loves another whether it be gay or not then let them marry

[no9t9 0]

I don't think the legal status of a relationship would affect how a brother/sister or father/son feel about each other. Does the fact that they cannot be legally married have any impact on how they feel about each other? I think not. And it won't stop any of the problems you mentioned from occuring, either. The only difference is the title.

Is what I'm saying really that hard to understand? I am not telling you the legal status will affect the way brother/sister relationships develop. Where did I say this? Do you need to make up stuff in order to dispute my arguement?

The problem I am referring to is the issue of marriage for ANY ONE who is IN LOVE. I am NOT referring to the problem of a brother who may love his sister in the wrong way.

Let me try again... (4th time). IF GAY MARRIAGE IS ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER, which was the original arguement, WOULD THAT NOT MEAN THAT INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE ACCEPTABLE? The point is this... IF a brother and sister love each other enough to want to get married, would you think that is OK? If a man has a wife already, do you think it is ok for him to have another? If a guy loves his dog, do you think he should be allowed to marry it?

You've already acknowledged that the meaning of marriage has distengrated to some degree.

The meaning of marriage has disintegrated to some degree.. yes... but does that mean it should be allowed to disintegrate further? You yourself have used the term disintegrate which means to fall apart. Why choose a word that means to fall apart? If the institution of marriage should be available for all, wouldn't it imply that today, the institution of marriage is stronger than ever? Adding gay marriages should make it even better. Obviously you chose the word disintegrate because the dilution of the marriage and what it means has gotten worse over the years and it doesn't mean as much anymore. You would allow this to degrade further...

No matter what happens, it merely constitutes a title, because the religious context by which it was originally initiated has since vanished. And if that's all it boils down to, what's wrong with allowing these couples to hold that title?

And next... you don't seem to grasp the concept of freedom of religion. So, I guess I'll have to state my point (YET AGAIN). It doesn't matter that you, or anyone else, thinks that marriage has no more religious context. That is YOUR belief. Other people have their own beliefs and they are not being respected. What's wrong with allowing them to hold the title? IF I BELIEVE IN TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO MEN IS A SIN, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE THAT INTO MY CHURCH. ALLOWING GAYS TO GET *MARRIED* UNDER THE WORD MARRIAGE BY LAW WOULD FORCE A CHURCH TO ALLOW IT IN THEIR PLACE OF WORSHIP EVEN WHEN IT IS AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS. Where are the rights of of the church and its parishioners to practice freedom of religion? Now do you understand the dilemma of the title?

[Plurk 0]

no9t9;You keep bashing the same drum. I have not the time or energy to completely submerge myself in your argument but, my oh my, you are flogging a dead horse there matey boy!"IF I BELIEVE IN TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO MEN IS A SIN, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE THAT INTO MY CHURCH. ALLOWING GAYS TO GET *MARRIED* UNDER THE WORD MARRIAGE BY LAW WOULD FORCE A CHURCH TO ALLOW IT IN THEIR PLACE OF WORSHIP EVEN WHEN IT IS AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS. "My believes state that I HAVE to sacrifice one homophobic christian every week. What right has the law to force me to set that believe aside? Well in fact; it has every right. You keep saying marriage between gays is unconstitutional, when in fact the constitution protects every race, age, or sexual preference from this kind of discrimination... During the Spanish Inquisition religion thought it justified to torture and kill anyone they felt like. Church (& society as a whole) once thought it justified to shut blacks out of their human rights. Wake up boy. This is the 21st century. Gays will get married everywhere within your lifetime. Let it go...Oh and marriage is not a Church (and by htis you seem to mean only the Christian church) institution. You just stole it and called it yours (like Microsoft), as you did with Easter and Christmas, and a lot of pagan things you couldn't get rid of...