Gay Marriage

[chiefwiggum654]

Alright ladies and gentlemen, just interested in hearing if you guys have any good arguments for or against it.
I really don't think government should be dealing with marriage at all, but, unfortunately, they are dealing with it and show no signs of stopping.
Given that, it only makes sense to me that gay people should be allowed the right to marry.
The fact that it's even an issue is almost disturbing, frankly.
So vote and tell me why you voted the way you did.

[SinRG]

Heh, I always found it to be the super religious, or the ignorant, to be opposed to same-sex marriage. But hey, I guess the two names are interchangeable

We have no right to dictate who gets married, be it same-sex or hetero. If two people are genuinely in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, by all means, they should be allowed to sanctify their love.

Personally I have no problem with same-sex marriage; I have no problem with gays at all actually. Sure they are corky, talk/walk ‘funny’, but hey, they’re people too. As long as they don’t aggravate me (just like how any other human would), I'm fine with them.

Uh in Toronto same-sex marriage is legal, and I didn't really grow up with a heavy religious background so I guess I'm impartial to the idea. It's kind of a 'alright so those two gay couple or getting married, okay so what? There's bigger news...... DIABLO III'

[Levinoss]

Not any of my business if they want to get married or not.

[Templar]

Without getting too into it, the reason most religious fanatics think of it as bad is because of this:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)

Since it is in the Old Testament, there is not much difference between that and the Hebrew Bible, the Quran, and lots of other "books" that religious people follow. However, many people take what the Bible, or their "book," says way too literally. A lot of things written in the Bible just don't make sense in today's world.

Personally, I don't believe in the union of two men or two women, as it goes against our primal nature to mate and reproduce. But I do think if those two people love each other, regardless of their gender, they should have the right to be married.

What I am TRULY against, however, is the state's intervention in the church. The government should not be allowed to tell a church what they can and can't do. We founded the separation of church and state for a very specific reason, and it should continue to be that way. If a church decides not to marry a gay couple, then they shouldn't be forced to recognize it. It is a religious freedom that the government is trying to take away.

[Zoen]

Originally Posted by Templar

Without getting too into it, the reason most religious fanatics think of it as bad is because of this:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)

Since it is in the Old Testament, there is not much difference between that and the Hebrew Bible, the Quran, and lots of other "books" that religious people follow. However, many people take what the Bible, or their "book," says way too literally. A lot of things written in the Bible just don't make sense in today's world.

Personally, I don't believe in the union of two men or two women, as it goes against our primal nature to mate and reproduce. But I do think if those two people love each other, regardless of their gender, they should have the right to be married.

What I am TRULY against, however, is the state's intervention in the church. The government should not be allowed to tell a church what they can and can't do. We founded the separation of church and state for a very specific reason, and it should continue to be that way. If a church decides not to marry a gay couple, then they shouldn't be forced to recognize it. It is a religious freedom that the government is trying to take away.

I could go into what my girlfriend stated when she was having a debate with a fanatical Christian. She told him she didn't believe heavily in the bible because it was just written by man when he was saying "you shouldn't do this and that" because 'the bible says not to".

So, technically, by that logic, anything written in a religious book that says "don't do this" you're not supposed to do because the original author says no.

Personally, I'm all for the idea. Discluding the people who marry for greed and those who marry just to get half of the other person's possessions, people usually marry when they're in love, right? Right.

If you look up "love" in the Dictionary, nowhere does it say love is "between a man and a woman".

Originally Posted by Dictionary

n.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
4. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
5. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7.
1. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
2. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity Charity.
10. Sports A zero score in tennis.

v. loved, lov·ing, loves

v. tr.

1. To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
2. To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
3. To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.
4.
1. To embrace or caress.
2. To have sexual intercourse with.
5. To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
6. Theology To have charity for.
7. To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.

v. intr.
To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.

n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
2. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
3. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
4. A common-law marriage.
5. The state or relationship of two adults who are married: Their marriage has been a happy one.
2. A wedding.

Even the Dictionary is adding more definitions to Marriage so it's not specifically "between man and woman".

Love isn't discriminatory based on sex, so why should marriage?

[FWI]

Originally Posted by SinRG

Heh, I always found it to be the super religious, or the ignorant, to be opposed to same-sex marriage. But hey, I guess the two names are interchangeable

Judging the judgmental only hurts your own cause There are plenty of exceptions to any stereotype.



I am a follower of what Jesus teaches (whether or not you want to call him a crazy man or the Son of God). Personally, I believe that he was crucified and did raise from the dead. So you could call me a Christian if you want it that way.

On this issue however, I don't agree at all with how the church has handled it. What bothers me is that the Christian Church has enough trouble with their own heterosexual marriages. They are divorcing each other left and right, committing adultery (cheating, etc.), and breaking their OWN commandments about what the Bible claims to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman. On that point, I think they have much of their own issues to worry about before they tell another people group if They can get married.

On another point, I believe that it never is and never was the Church's job to forcibly impose its beliefs on people who don't believe in the same God. The Bible does describe that it is their job to go "spread the good news," however. The ignorant ways in which they have addressed the gay community only makes "the good news" look like "the terrible news." The Church cannot and should not expect every person to abide by the rules they abide by. They should be worried about the persons soul (according to what they are taught), not changing the law of the land (which the Bible also teaches to abide by).

With that, the separation of Church and State protects both the State from the Church and the Church from the State. With that said, marriage between the same sex should never be imposed on the Church, making them perform something that they do not believe in. If gay marriage is legalized (more), that should be protected.

Although I don't agree with gay lifestyles and gay marriage, I voted yes on the poll because of the above reasons (and many more that I failed to mention because I'm going to be late to work). I continue to maintain friendships with gay men and women, of whom are wonderful people. They know I disagree with their lifestyle, but they only hear about it when they want to (and you'd be surprised, they often want to talk to a "Christian" who won't just yell at them).

I have no time to proofread this, so I sure as heck hope I didn't say something that would make you believe something other than what I said

-Ben

[KingDino]

Legally I feel that they should be allowed to get married. Since marriage is more than a religious union, there are legalities to it. However, if a religious official does not want to do the ceremony they should not be forced to do it.

[Shmoo]

In the eyes of the government, anyone should be allowed to get married. It is (or should be) a legal right. However, religious groups can believe whatever they want to be. The govenment should not be influenced by these religious groups, though.

[white_raven]

marriage is a religious thing.
If the religion doesn't want gays to marry. then to bad.

The goverment Should then "create" a social event binding two people of the same sex together, in equivalence to a marriage. Same rights, but not done in a church. Not done by a priest guy with the book (blanking on name).

Marriage is religious in nature.

Im not against gay's. Im not even religious. but u have to respect their beliefs. U can force ur Gay'ness upon them (lol).

[Lunkwill]

Originally Posted by Templar

What I am TRULY against, however, is the state's intervention in the church. The government should not be allowed to tell a church what they can and can't do. We founded the separation of church and state for a very specific reason, and it should continue to be that way. If a church decides not to marry a gay couple, then they shouldn't be forced to recognize it. It is a religious freedom that the government is trying to take away.

This. This is the ONLY reason I am against gay marriage. If the church doesn't want to marry gay people, that is their problem and even if it is wrong, immoral, etc, the government should not be able to intervene. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing agaisnt gay people or gays having some sort of "marriage" that gives them the same rights as a married couple. If churches decided to start marrying two men/women, I wouldn't care at all, I'd be happy. But its up to the church, it's their rules. The church can't tell the government to do things, so why should the government be able to tell the church what to do?

[Hot Shot]

Originally Posted by white_raven

Im not against gay's. Im not even religious. but u have to respect their beliefs.

I'm not against gays as well, although there are places where it's a crime to be gay. Just look at the WBC, they do the utmost insulting things like picketing a gay person's funeral because he was of different sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by white_raven

U can force ur Gay'ness upon them (lol).

Yeah, but saying that someone was born a furry won't give that person an excuse to get special treatment because a furry is brought into the anthropomorphic subject by itself and not naturally because it's complete bullshit.

Being born gay has less bullshit in terms of scientific value than being born a furry.

~HS

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by white_raven

marriage is a religious thing.
If the religion doesn't want gays to marry. then to bad.

The goverment Should then "create" a social event binding two people of the same sex together, in equivalence to a marriage. Same rights, but not done in a church. Not done by a priest guy with the book (blanking on name).

Marriage is religious in nature.

Im not against gay's. Im not even religious. but u have to respect their beliefs. U can force ur Gay'ness upon them (lol).

You can get married civilly through a marriage officiant...

I certainly would never get married if it had to be religiously, whether it be to a man or a woman.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by white_raven

marriage is a religious thing.
If the religion doesn't want gays to marry. then to bad.

The goverment Should then "create" a social event binding two people of the same sex together, in equivalence to a marriage. Same rights, but not done in a church. Not done by a priest guy with the book (blanking on name).

Marriage is religious in nature.

Im not against gay's. Im not even religious. but u have to respect their beliefs. U can force ur Gay'ness upon them (lol).

Marriage is not just a religious thing, there are legalities when it comes to marriage.

Civil unions, as they are called, have all the legal aspects of a marriage, but nothing to do with a church or any religious thing.

There's much more to being married than going to a church and putting a ring on someone's finger, maybe you should look into it.

@ Zoen:

I love my sister, that doesn't mean I'm going to marry her. Of course the dictionary wouldn't state it has to be between a man and a women, as there are many forms of love... I don't know if you were trying to argue with what I said or not, because if you are, you mustn't have actually read my post.

[Zoen]

Originally Posted by Templar

@ Zoen:

I love my sister, that doesn't mean I'm going to marry her. Of course the dictionary wouldn't state it has to be between a man and a women, as there are many forms of love... I don't know if you were trying to argue with what I said or not, because if you are, you mustn't have actually read my post.

My addendum about love and marriage wasn't directed towards you, but was more of a general post. The portion directed more towards you was the top part when I was referencing my girlfriend and the bible. When the fanatical Christian was asked "why can't we do suchandsuch", his only response was "because the bible says so".

If the only rebuttal they have is "because the bible says so", then they have no evidence as to why that statement was formed in the first place, and why it is so enforced or "looked down upon".

Anyways, back to topic:

I don't really see marriage as being religious, because my oldest brother had his wedding "sans ceremony". Basically, his wedding was about 10-15 minutes long. It consisted of everyone walking out as per the plan, then a short snippet reading from the book, then the exchange of vows, then them pouring sand together into a container, then the rings, the kiss, and that was it. A few moments afterwards was the reception.

Sure, I had to sign a legal paper stating I was a witness to the wedding, but other than that, there wasn't much religion involved at all, and they're legally married.

[FWI]

Originally Posted by Zoen

My addendum about love and marriage wasn't directed towards you, but was more of a general post. The portion directed more towards you was the top part when I was referencing my girlfriend and the bible. When the fanatical Christian was asked "why can't we do suchandsuch", his only response was "because the bible says so".

If the only rebuttal they have is "because the bible says so", then they have no evidence as to why that statement was formed in the first place, and why it is so enforced or "looked down upon".

Zoen, I'd be more than happy to tackle questions she has if she's relatively interested in hearing answers from someone who listens and a Christian who wouldn't Dare give a "cop out" answer like the one she received.

On a broader note however, I was surprised my comment was overlooked

edit: @ Templar, civil unions, although they carry many of the same legal benefits as marriage, do not contain all of them. Some of them being major benefits to being legally married. That's *part* of the reason the gay community is fighting the cause (amongst other reasons)

@ Hot Shot: the WBC (westboro baptist church) is more of a hate group (ie. the KKK), not a church they just call themselves a church and use random verses from the bible to back up what they think is right

[Sir_Pimp]

Reguardless of how i feel about the sanctity of marrige or how i feel about Gay ppl, restricting ppls rights goes against everything this country stands for. To me this is a no brainer. Then ppl start talking about how God views "Marrige" or how its defined in the bible. I couldnt care less myself.

Let ppl do what they want as long as it doesnt hurt ppl period.

[Zoen]

Originally Posted by FWI

Zoen, I'd be more than happy to tackle questions she has if she's relatively interested in hearing answers from someone who listens and a Christian who wouldn't Dare give a "cop out" answer like the one she received.

On a broader note however, I was surprised my comment was overlooked

It's also in the movie/series/whatever I recently saw called "Night One" and "Night Two". While the main character is having flashbacks to his childhood, the priest is running a baptist school for children, and the kid asks the priest something on what he's talking about. The priest's response? "Because that's what the bible says."

Moreorless, I think it's because these specific Christians that live by the bible thinking it's "the way of life" is what irks her, and it also irks me a bit as well. Sure, the bible may carry some good guidelines and points, but it is in no way a strict path to life.

[lord-underdog]

I had to vote no simply because i've been getting a bit more religious lately.... but honestly i have a bit of a different opinion of the subject now.

I don't see anything wrong with them having a "legal partnership" but the term marriage is in fact a religious thing that is between two people, god, and a religious figure such as a priest or a pastor.

My own belief is that if you go up to elvis or a judge and sign a piece of paper you aren't "religiously" married, you're simply bound as far as the government is concerned......

now....

that isn't to say that a celebration couldn't occur where the man and the....man.. were to share a cake and invite family and friends over. to witness the "binding" but the fact remains that it will never be a "marriage"




also, to clear things up a bit....

yea.... let em do what ever the hell they want to do. if they want to call it married then so be it. in my mind it will never be a marriage but who's to tell them that they cant do something that is in no way shape or form harming another individual.

[FWI]

Originally Posted by lord-underdog

I had to vote no simply because i've been getting a bit more religious lately.... but honestly i have a bit of a different opinion of the subject now.

I don't see anything wrong with them having a "legal partnership" but the term marriage is in fact a religious thing that is between two people, god, and a religious figure such as a priest or a pastor.

My own belief is that if you go up to elvis or a judge and sign a piece of paper you aren't "religiously" married, you're simply bound as far as the government is concerned......

now....

that isn't to say that a celebration couldn't occur where the man and the....man.. were to share a cake and invite family and friends over. to witness the "binding" but the fact remains that it will never be a "marriage"




also, to clear things up a bit....

yea.... let em do what ever the hell they want to do. if they want to call it married then so be it. in my mind it will never be a marriage but who's to tell them that they cant do something that is in no way shape or form harming another individual.

Looks like you're still trying to find out exactly where you stand. Read my post (#6), what do you think of that?

[Shmoo]

Originally Posted by Zoen

It's also in the movie/series/whatever I recently saw called "Night One" and "Night Two". While the main character is having flashbacks to his childhood, the priest is running a baptist school for children, and the kid asks the priest something on what he's talking about. The priest's response? "Because that's what the bible says."

Moreorless, I think it's because these specific Christians that live by the bible thinking it's "the way of life" is what irks her, and it also irks me a bit as well. Sure, the bible may carry some good guidelines and points, but it is in no way a strict path to life.

Hey, don't make a general statement like this. There are many people that follow the bible strictly, but there are many that don't. throughout my life, I've encountered mostly non-strict followers. I'm catholic, but I don't follow the bible strictly. I believe that the stories jesus told were meant to show morals, not be taken literately. for example, if jesus tried to explain the origin of man to people, they wouldn't understand. so, he created the simple story of adam and eve to show this and temptation. someone who is strict might say "oh, you need to go to church every day and follow the bible to be christian", but they're wrong in my eyes. if you're a good person, you should go to heaven (if there is one). religion, sexual preference, and other lifestyle choices should not affect this. i live by the bible for its morals. that is all.