Gay Marriage

[Caveman 0]

Hey there sonny, you're on fire You do understand that being gay is not a gesture to spite God. A man does not love another man in order to displease the divine sovereignty, nor does a brother when he loves his sister, a man who desires two wives, or even a man who *truly* has feelings for his dog. This attraction is borne out of an unexplainable nature. IT JUST CANNOT BE HELPED.Based on this, it is safe to assume that there are devoted Catholics (yes, Catholics, since it is principally the Catholic church that has a beef with gay marriage) who may in fact develop these feelings, which invariably clash with their ideology. It soon becomes a battle of heart and conscience. This conflict arises against their will--they do not wish to place God and love on a scale, expecting one to outweigh another in the ultimate moral solution. They desperately wish for things to work out, since they are not willing to immediately forego one or the other. Thus, the debate is not ceaselessly forced down the throats of the church and its parishoners. Rather, it filters in. It is absurd to think that a gay couple actually has malignant intentions when they plan to get married. They don't wish to brainwash the church. They merely want to compromise. If that notion cannot be properly acknowledged, then the church has got some serious priority questions to tackle...

[no9t9 0]

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?

If it were actually a religion, the right to religious freedom would allow it. As long as you aren't affecting someone elses right (ie. to live). do you understand the context in which the word beliefs is being used? Just because you believe someting it doesn't make it a religion. Think of a better example.

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.

If you actually bothered to read the post, at no time did I say marriage between gays is unconstitutional. So... please stop making things up. I said it would be unconstitutional to make a law FORCING gay marriages on people for whom their religion regards as a sin. Gays can get "joined" all they want, but not through the institution of marriage.
OMG, you are now talking about church and state issues. In no way am I saying the state should apply laws that discriminate against gays. I already said (I don't know how many times anymore), that they SHOULD be allowed to have all the same LEGAL rights as a "married" couple... but not through the institution of marriage.

Wake up boy. This is the 21st century. Gays will get married everywhere within your lifetime. Let it go...

Oh boy... is that supposed to be an insult? Trying to act older or what? Gays will be married, I have no doubt about that. Some already are. What is your point? Does that mean I am not allowed to discuss my point of view?

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...

Again, stop making things up. I have never said that marriage is a church nor have I EVER talked about any SPECIFIC religion since gays are not accepted in MANY religions. Next, you assume I am christian... which I am not. Finally, I think YOU are the one who doesn't understand what the institution of marriage actually means.

[no9t9 0]

Hey there sonny, you're on fire

What's with calling people "boy" and "sonny"? Does that give you a sense of power over me?

You do understand that being gay is not a gesture to spite God. A man does not love another man in order to displease the divine sovereignty, nor does a brother when he loves his sister, a man who desires two wives, or even a man who *truly* has feelings for his dog. This attraction is borne out of an unexplainable nature. IT JUST CANNOT BE HELPED.

omg. I am not talking about WHY they are gay. We are talking about the LAWS and making it LEGAL. Why do you people have to make *BLEEP* up and get off the subject all the time? It makes it difficult to have an intelligent conversation. You haven't answered the question... disregard the fact that they can't CHOOSE who they fall in love with. If a brother loves his sister and wants to get married.. would it be OK to make a law allowing it? This is a direct response to your (and others) statements about gays loving each other and should be allowed to marry. Please answer the question. It is a simple yes or no answer. Basically, in order to support your gay love arguement, you MUST answer YES.
It is clear that you are avoiding the question because you have no real answer. In fact, I am just pointing out that LOVE has nothing to do with marriage in a LEGAL perspective which is what the topic is all about.

Based on this, it is safe to assume that there are devoted Catholics (yes, Catholics, since it is principally the Catholic church that has a beef with gay marriage) who may in fact develop these feelings, which invariably clash with their ideology. It soon becomes a battle of heart and conscience. This conflict arises against their will--they do not wish to place God and love on a scale, expecting one to outweigh another in the ultimate moral solution.

Catholics, christians, whatever.. it doesn't matter to me. I am talking about the LEGAL ramifications of ALLOWING gay marriages by LAW. I know that many people who practice a religion that does not allow gays yet they are gay. So what? That is not the point. The point is, if gay marriages are allowed by law.. it will open up the debate on gays RIGHTS by law to get married where ever they choose.
I also find it interesting that you use the words a "battle of heart and conscience". The way you are writing your comments indicates that you support gays but still think it is wrong. That is very interesting.

It is absurd to think that a gay couple actually has malignant intentions when they plan to get married. They don't wish to brainwash the church. They merely want to compromise. If that notion cannot be properly acknowledged, then the church has got some serious priority questions to tackle...

Again, I wish you would stop making things up. I never said gays were out to hurt people or they had an agenda. If you read the posts, I talk about gays wanting equal rights for marriage. That's the issue, nothing more. I have been and am still debating on the LEGAL aspect of allowing gay marriages. You, and others, continue to talk about moral and social implications.
And the word isn't malignant, it is malicious.

[arcanistherogue 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.

50711[/snapback]

I have the exact same views as you. I use the same sort of analogy, and the reason that it started out as a religious event when I debate this topic.

[bjrn 0]

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?

My suggestion would be that churches should have nothing to do with the (legal) marriage. As far as I am concerned they may hold a marriage ceremony, but it would be a religious ceremony, like baptising or communion, with no official relation to the marriage (as seen by law). In other words, a true split of church and state. The current situation where the church has special rights to marry people is in my eyes undesirable.
That way a church (or other organisation) could deny anyone they like: gay couples, one armed people, people who make bad jokes. I don't care. The problem here is not same sex marriage, it's that churches are allowed to marry people (again, in the sense of the law).

About marriage having religious connotations for you, I'm sure it might have for you, and many christians, but it doesn't for everyone.

[Caveman 0]

Okay, dude. If you're gonna question my intelligence, this means war. First of all, yes, I do have power over you. In fact, I own you. It's scientifically proven.Second, I wasn't talking about WHY they are gay, either. That was a mere segue. I was explaining the ultimate consequences that arise from facing such a moral decision. You say that I make up stuff? Look at yourself! You can't even swallow what's presented to you!Third, as an answer to your burning question, YES. I think incest laws are *BLEEP*. This is the interference of state with church at its finest. They are merely concerned with the biological consequences of such a relationship (i.e. the heightened chance of appearance of negative recessionary traits). When a brother and sister cannot be legally married, guess what? That's not going to stop them from procreating! So what the hell? The law does nothing. In any event, a church has a right to refuse the marriage of any couple, regardless of the circumstances. This can be because of age difference, race difference, etc. So even if a law were passed ALLOWING this, it's not like the church would be FORCED to. One church doesn't have to marry a gay couple, but there's always going to be one out there that's going to. Legally, by means of the ideal social contract between church and state, the government has no right FORCING or BANNING a specific religious act. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case in our country's history...Fourth, I quote you: "I also find it interesting that you use the words a 'battle of heart and conscience'. The way you are writing your comments indicates that you support gays but still think it is wrong. That is very interesting." Nice job pulling *BLEEP* out of your *bottom*.Fifth, I never said you were. That was an impersonal statement.Sixth, malignant. By definition: showing great malevolence; disposed to do evil. Great work, Sherlock.Seventh and finally, give it up, you stubborn thing. I never intended to rattle your bones, but at this point, I am inclined to continue until you crack. You delibrately avoid key points by using the excuse that I make stuff up. Get real, and read between the lines.

[no9t9 0]

I have not avoided ANY key points. I am trying to get your STUPID responses BACK ON TOPIC. YOU are the one avoiding answering questions and going off on tangents. How are you gonna argue with someone by NOT answering what was asked and spouting garbage that has no relavence to what was being disputed? And yes, I do believe you are of lower intelligence. And I guess "owning" someone is acceptable to you with your warped sense of morals. You support legalization of incestuous relationships. Next you will support a pedophile who "loves" children since they cant help themselves. Might as well make child porn legal since those guys will do it anyway... Great logic. And you think you're NOT dumb? Making stuff up??? Hey, when in Rome... maybe you should learn to read between the lines. By the way... you WERE making *BLEEP* up and deliberately avoiding the question. Either that or you are incapable of responding in a debate.All along, I've said.. I am talking about the LEGAL issues of allowing gay marriages. I don't give 2 shits if they can help themselves, or they choose to be, if they think it's fun, what they are thinking, or if they go *BLEEP* themselves.The fact is. Once gay marriages are legal, they can then move to the next step and say that since it is legal.. they cannot be denied access. You say that the church is allowed to refuse regardless of circumstance? What if I was not allowed to goto church cause I was black? Is the church allowed to refuse? No. All the black groups and equal rights tree huggers would be up in arms about this. the same thing applies for gays. Currently, gays are not LEGALLY allowed to be MARRIED. That means the church doesn't have to marry them otherwise they would be doing something illegal. Oh and malignant. whatever.. so english isn't my first language. Sue me.And by all means, continue until I crack. But, how will you know when that happens? I don't think you have the ability to determine when that point is. Or were you just spouting more garbage?

[no9t9 0]

My suggestion would be that churches should have nothing to do with the (legal) marriage. As far as I am concerned they may hold a marriage ceremony, but it would be a religious ceremony, like baptising or communion, with no official relation to the marriage (as seen by law). In other words, a true split of church and state. The current situation where the church has special rights to marry people is in my eyes undesirable.

 

That way a church (or other organisation) could deny anyone they like: gay couples, one armed people, people who make bad jokes. I don't care. The problem here is not same sex marriage, it's that churches are allowed to marry people (again, in the sense of the law).

 

About marriage having religious connotations for you, I'm sure it might have for you, and many christians, but it doesn't for everyone.

Finally, someone who actually provided a THOUGHTFUL response and seems to understand what my point is. Your suggestion is exactly what my point is. A seperation of church and state so that the church can marry whomever they want. Hence, my point of making a new name like "union" for the law. This will allow gays the same LEGAL privilages of other married couples.

 

And religious connotations of marriage, I know it doesn't for everyone but to those that it DOES have religious connotations, a gay marriage would be a slap to the face since those people's religion is not being respected by the law. That is what my problem is. Solution: As stated above. Also, I AM NOT CHRISTIAN. Don't insult me like that!

 

I have the exact same views as you.  I use the same sort of analogy, and the reason that it started out as a religious event when I debate this topic.

51249[/snapback]

I'm glad you understands. Bravo. That makes 2 people who understand.

[Amby 0]

I regret creating this post. Y'all need to calm down. This is a debate, on a forum, on the internet. Y'all are getting way to heated. Just let it go. You've all stated your opinions, dont beat it to death now.Each post here represents someones OPINION. Thats right, an opinion. At least accept it as that, and let it go. Dont let it get to you that someone disagrees.I dont know. I wish this would get closed now. Its getting out of hand I think.Hugs, everyone just stay calm.Amby

[biscuitrat 0]

Religion should have no place in love as far as I'm concerned. You can love whomever you like and that's that. I would hate it if I got kicked out of a church because they didn't want me to marry someone. And one armed people as far as I'm concerned are not a seperate religion so that has no context. Look, I'm 14. I understand that people need to be able to love who they want to love. And people have basic common sense. I love my dog, but I'm not going to marry her. My brothers love my mom, but they'd never marry her. And polygamy has nothing to with gay marriage. Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean that you have to marry more than one person. Or that people will marry more people because you get married. And isn't it true that banned items are always more popular? Maybe the world will finally understand how shameful this is: repressing love. I speak this in advocation of gay marriage because I advocate a lot of things such as smoking bans that would do good to our society. Just because you're not used to it doesn't make it bad. And marriage is an act of love, not religion as far as I'm concerned. Just because you're religious and you meet a girl/guy that's religious doesn't mean you have to be married in a church. Marriage does not inhibit you from going to church or continuing worship however. I don't know how it's documented in the Bible because I'm not Christian, but if it's a book of peace, why would it prohibit things? And why isn't it in the 10 commandments if it's so "important"?

[dropout21 0]

as i saw a part of no9t9's earlier if gay marriage is allowed will 'cousin marriage' or 'pedo marriage' because everyone here who seems to think that gay marriage should be allowed are saying that the laws shouldnt govern marriage nor the church just the individuals so y not a 40yr old man and a 13yr old boy? same concept, those who for gay marriages you cannot be against a 'pedo marriage' because it would have the same 'marriage freedoms' as you search for and its supposed to be about the love not the law or the church. marriage is supposed to be about having a commitment and having 'natural' children with the spouse, gay marriage cannot not fufill this.just my view. any responses?

[biscuitrat 0]

Not all couples marry because they want to have children. They just want to be together. A marriage is a union of love!

[dropout21 0]

Not all couples marry because they want to have children. They just want to be together. A marriage is a union of love!

51336[/snapback]

i suppose your right, but i would refer to that as a union, i think of marriage as to join lives and have children but some people just wish to join lives. my point is

 

Main Entry: mar?riage

Pronunciation: 'mar-ij

Function: noun

1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

[no9t9 0]

And people have basic common sense. I love my dog, but I'm not going to marry her. My brothers love my mom, but they'd never marry her.

No they don't. Not every one has "common sense". In fact, there ARE people in the world who would LIKE to marry their own brother/sister. There ARE people in the world who have sex within the family. Just because YOUR brother wouldn't marry your mother, doesn't mean others wouldn't.

And polygamy has nothing to with gay marriage. Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean that you have to marry more than one person. Or that people will marry more people because you get married.

I never said gays or married people are inclined to wanting another spouse. Your arguement is that people should be allowed to love who they want. Well, if someone (doesnt matter if gay or not) loves TWO people, should they be allowed to have a threeway marriage? Current laws say NO (in most places).

Maybe the world will finally understand how shameful this is: repressing love.

Nobody is talking about repression of love. You don't have to get married to love someone.

as smoking bans that would do good to our society. Just because you're not used to it doesn't make it bad.

Just because you deem it bad doesn't make it bad either.

And marriage is an act of love, not religion as far as I'm concerned.

You are entitled to your opinioin but just know that there are many people out there who don't think the way you do.

@dropout. I'm glad you understand my point.

[googlue 0]

I regret creating this post. Y'all need to calm down. This is a debate, on a forum, on the internet. Y'all are getting way to heated. Just let it go. You've all stated your opinions, dont beat it to death now.

 

Each post here represents someones OPINION. Thats right, an opinion. At least accept it as that, and let it go. Dont let it get to you that someone disagrees.

 

I dont know. I wish this would get closed now. Its getting out of hand I think.

 

Hugs, everyone just stay calm.

Amby

51332[/snapback]

You don't have to feel sorry.

 

This is the Vent! The issue you have raised is like that.

 

If this goes out of hand and the discussion turns personal or becomes in any way demeaning of any gender, race or nationality, it will be closed/deleted immediately as the case needs.