Just kidding. Jesus is cool enough to let people be. However, the gay marriage-debates are great at diverting the public attention away from all the other problems the US has.
I'd like to meet people who say people shouldn't marry because of the offence it causes to people who aren't even part of the wedding which seemingly causes offence.
Let them marry, divorce, lawyers, one walks away with the house and the car, other with alimony to pay, who cares, its their personal business. I just hope that once they get equal rights, they will stop with those parades.
No. Im not anti gay and im not religious, but i don't think it's right to change an institution founded by a religion thats against gays. You don't force white nationalists to accept blacks do you? It's not right at all. They should just call it something else, but not "marriage" When i see people going "they're people too" and "they're equals" i think they're missing the point because it's not about that. The church has a problem with it because it infringes on their beliefs. People say there's no reason why they can't, well i've never heard one reason good enough to violate a religion.
This is simply a claim that religion has more of a right to have everyone adhere to its beliefs than gays have the right to live free of discrimination.
No it doesn't mean adhere to them at all it means leave them alone. It has nothing to do with discrimination in the first place. The institution is presided over by the church, so it's simply a case of gays minding their own business. They are infact discriminating against themselves by trying to be part of an institution that hates them. EVERY religion has the right to stick to it's beliefs and not have them changed by outsiders! Way more right than gays have to just but in on something that isn't theirs just to prove a point, i mean they don't need to be married to make a commitment to each other. Just like feminism they always want to be so hard done by but they aren't. Gays were accepted years ago, no more feeling sorry for them as it's time to grow up and realise not everyone can have or do anything they want "just because". The day the whole world becomes politically correct is the day all ethics and order go out the window!
I mean it's sort of like you wouldn't rewrite the bible or the Qur'an just to make someone happy would you?
As the United States is a country, not a religion, it should be -legal- for them to marry. A church, which is based on religious beliefs, should be -legally allowed- to state that they, as a church, will not marry same sexes, if it violates their own beliefs. As a political matter, marriage is a legally binding contract and should be handled as such. It is unethical to state two people of the same gender cannot sign a legally binding contract. No person should be left out of a legal matter based on discriminative properties.
It is the hinge your argument ultimately stands on. It's a RELIGIOUS institution not a political one, so im not sure how anything you said is actually a point because none of it is real?
Marriage was invented by the church, it should be upto them obviously.
As I stated in my argument, the churches should be able to say no if it is against their beliefs, therefore making it up to them. -Politicians- should have NO authority in making marriage illegal for any individuals. Marriage should be up to the individual church, as many churches do not share the same belief that marriage is between one man, one woman. The 'Church' is supposed to be separated from the 'State', which means it should not be 'illegal' for any individual to marry- specifically because it's not political. Therefore, gay marriage should be deemed legal, while still not interjecting the laws of freedoms to choose what to/not to do in a given religion.
The government preventing gay marriage for religious purposes is unconstitutional. Remember that little line in there about the separation of church and state? Apart from religion I have not seen one other valid reason that gays shouldn't marry.
I get what you're saying but is there a good enough reason that they can marry? Why don't they just call it something else and just not use the term "married" then everyones happy and there's nothing the church can argue about. But no they want to but in on it, thats what pisses me off, the fucking with someones religion just to make others happy. I see it as far more immoral than keeping marriage between a man and a woman. It opens the gateway for peoples beliefs to be trampled on.
Because if your catholic, marriage is a sacred institution to you. And changing that institution in any way, especially to include people you are completely against is a direct invasion of your beliefs. To someone who follows gods teachings allowing gays to marry is one of the most sinful things you can do. So it's fairly obvious really.
"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22" That ^^^ mabey, read a fucking book.
They're not asking for the legal right to every catholic person's personal blessing. Catholics are still free to uphold whatever values they feel are right in their own lives and within their own marriages. They are still free to think homosexuality is an abomination if they want to. What other people do does not need to have any bearing on them.
Yes but as they invented it, changing it does change the moral structure of their tradition as a whole. If it didn't there wouldn't be such a fierce debate about it in the first place. To them it destroys what marriage stands for. It's really wrong because people don't think of the rules and laws that every catholic shares as a whole being violated. People who aren't Religious are the ones who support this because they don't give two shits about the religion they're invading.
So why is there not mass indignation over straight atheists, people who have had premarital sex, and other such blasphemers ruining the institution of marriage? Why is it legal to get a divorce when marriage is supposed to be "till death do us part"?
At the present, marriage is something that for most people has very little to do with religion. It's also changed quite a bit in other ways since it was invented. It seems silly that there is a hangup about this particular thing.
"So why is there not mass indignation over straight atheists, people who have had premarital sex, and other such blasphemers ruining the institution of marriage?"
Because it is the view of the church that those people haven't found god yet, but someday they will. Gays on the other hand are in defiance of him and can't find him as they are obviously gay for life. Thats why anyone can go to church, but they wouldn't be too happy if you walked into church and said "im gay" no sir. Oh and in the catholic faith divorce is a very serious thing and you can be shunned for having one. And im not catholic by the way but fuck, you should atleast know about it if you're going to debate it.
So, you're saying that it should still be illegal because it violates other people's beliefs? Wow, you are a dumbass... And that is NOT what that verse says. Read the KJV, buddy. It says "abusers of themselves with mankind" Abuse=Rape. Learn your shit and read the Constitution for what it is and not what you want it to be
the Constitution is only american lol, it's of no importance as church and state are seperate but ofcourse you know that don't you dumbass. This is a world wide issue, the constitution has nothing to do with this at all as it doesn't exist almost everywhere!
"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22" This verse^^^ um yeah thats what it says, dumbass.
"So, you're saying that it should still be illegal because it violates other people's beliefs"
That's funny, especially since one of the chief concepts the US government was founded on is separation of church and state.
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seeing as legalizing gay marriage does not prohibit any religions that I can think of off the top of my head, I am unable to fathom why it's still up for debate. Religions can deny it in their churches, sure, but that shouldn't stop the government from giving it the "go ahead."
Thomas Jefferson? US government? First Amendment? They weren't around when the church and marriage were founded. Your destroying a 2000 year old tradition and law by supporting this, just so some gays can put a ring on their finger? It's just self indulgence on behalf of the gay population. I mean if a gay couple are married i don't see how you could look at that ring and not realise where it comes from. They should forget about marriage and save some self respect.
But, since America supposedly has no official religion, your argument is invalid. Constitutionally, we have the right to follow our own religion as we please. And many religious beliefs see homosexuality as not a sin, so why do it for one side and not the other? Your argument is invalid and unfair.
Very true. But because the religion that founded marriage happens to be one of those religions that DOES think it's a sin, your argument is invalid.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this debate, you americans do realise that it doesn't exist outside of america right? This is a world wide issue. It has NO POWER ANYWHERE in the world so how is it relevant to this world debate?
Okay so your argument against gay marriage is that it's religious, and thus if you are against the religion then you can't marry?
Promising to be with someone for the rest of your life (basically a marriage) is found in many religions not just Christianity some of which accept gays, what if they want a marriage by that religion.
Marriage is something many people do even if they aren't religious and the church has no say in that, why do they get to change the rights of gays?
Some Christian churches would permit a gay marriage; but the GOVERNMENT is stopping them.
AND being gay is less of a choice then a religion, so you say that protecting the rights of a choice is more important then protecting the rights of something you are born?
then don't force the Christians to allow it, but force the government to give gays the same rights as any married couple if they are willing to dedicate themselves like one.
That makes no sense and would be contradictory to my argument. Christians don't allow it, and it is that tradition i support. Non religious people are the ones supporting the gays because they don't give two shits about what they're destroying as they don't believe in it.
Not every marriage is under Christianity. I say the government should allow people to be wed under any religion that will allow them; and then have the same rights and benefits that all married people have. Such as insurance benefits that are only given to married couples, if two people are dedicated to each other for years and one of them passes away the one still living should get the life insurance money. and if they live together and one is dependant on the other to live and they break up they should get similar things to divorce benefits. These are the things gays are fighting for, the equal benefits that straight couples can have, because in some places if your partner dies you get nothing, if you break up they can take what they want unless both your names is on it.
Oh and just a note, I go to a Christian church and my minister supports gay marriage, there are thousands of other churches just like ours who would preform a gay marriage if requested, but some are in places where gay marriage is illegal and if they want to preform the marriage they should be alloud
Church and state are seperate. The only reason not every marriage is under religion is because the church originaly allowed non members to marry due to the fact that they believe all people will eventually find god, and allowing them to marry just helps that. But in the eyes of the church (whom the institution of marriage belongs too) gays can't find god, as he rejects homosexuals. So you see there is a religious dilemma in this issue that effects not just tradition but gods word. They don't want gays to marry because god is against it (obviously lol), and they don't want to dishonour him.
do you just read the first sentence of everything I write? THERE ARE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ACROSS THE GLOBE THAT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE! sorry for the caps but I felt that was a key point. Also, as stated before there are rights that only belong to married couples that gays would like. Legal rights decided by the government.
because rights that most couples have, or have the choice of having, gay couples are being rejected because one religion says no. Many religions have things similar to marriage, which are recognised as marriage under western laws, many of these even support gay marriage.
Yes but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage is the union of a man and woman by definition. It is not discriminatory as I as a straight male cannot marry a man either. I have no problem with same sex unions.
My idea, marriage should be taken it completely off the law list and replaced as Registered Civil Union, make it applicable to anyone and everyone, and give it the exact same benefits as a married couple would get today. And there we go, marriage is no longer idiotically dictated by the government, and people simply register that they're together to get the benefits. Whoever can be coupled with whoever, while still keeping equal rights for everyone, and at the same time it's still not going with the bad "separate but "equal"." route. And then hooray, everyones happy. At least in theory.
I challenge anybody to try and give me a valid reason that gay people shouldn't enjoy the exact same rights as any of you and I. Gays should be able to marry, share insurance, adopt children, and every other right that we are promised as Americans. (I don't really know the situation of gay rights in the rest of the world so I cannot offer a valid opinion outside of the US)
This exemplifies what is intrinsically wrong with our current society. We structure our laws mostly on rights. I think that we should have equal laws that are structured on responsibility. Do you think that gay people act responsibly if they marry, is a better question. Let the debate begin.
Using that logic, straight people shouldn't be aloud to marry. Seeing as there are more straight people get into all forms of trouble than gay people.
Attatching responsibility to ones sexuality is a stupid idea. Being straight, gay or bi doesn't mean that you are immediatly more responsible than another. A system based on assumptions is a terrible system.
I agree with you that a system based on assumptions is a terrible system. We currently have many laws that make assumptions. For instance, drinking laws. The law assumes that you were a child the day before your birthday, and an adult the day after. The law assumes that you suddenly become responsible enough to drink alcohol responsibly, within 24 hours. Marriage licensing laws assume that the married persons are going to have children. How are gay people going to have children? "Attatching responsibility to ones sexuality is a stupid idea". Are you actually suggesting that everyone should act sexually irresponsibly? That would mean that pedophilia, rape, incest, and polygamy would all be allowed. Not to mention, the rampant spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Heck, we can just use coat hangers for abortions and if you're against abortion, there's always a dumpster nearby. There are more straight people that get into trouble than gay people. That's because gay people are a small percentage of the population. You need to use a per capita basis when analyzing statistics. You are correct that some straight people should not be allowed to marry, like brothers and sisters.
1st paragraph, I can (mostly) agree with. Though gays can adopt, just like anyone else can. And straight couples don't always have children either. So it does work both ways. Another thing, you yorself said that you don't agree with laws that make assumptions either, and I now don't understand your first post at all, because you seem to contradict what you just said with your own arguement.
Second paragraph is nonsense, utter nonsense. Where did I even HINT that people SHOULD act irresponsibly? What does rape have to do with whether someone is attracted to the same sex, or pedophilia, polygamy, or incest? Where did I ever mention abortion either? That statement was completely off the subject as well, and is just a blatant attempt at making me look bad. Please, quit pulling completely irrelevant things out of your ass, and actually present an arguement for me to analyze if your going to write me a paragraph, or some sort of valid statement. The only thing I said in that sentence you quoted was that assuming someone will act irresponsibly because they're gay, straight, or bi, is stupid. Nothing more. That whole paragraph might as well just not have been there, seeing as it helps your arguement none, and looks to be just an attempt at a smear job on me using things that have no correlation to the topic at hand.
Last paragraph, alright I'll think using your logic again, on a percentage basis, with another example. A good portion of people in prisons are black. Should we assume that since someone is black, they will commit more crimes than someone else, and limit the population's rights for that?
This is a typically open-minded site. You'll likely get open-minded answers. If you were hoping for open-minded, open-hearted people, you're on the right site. However, if you're looking for statistics, you'll have to ask a large variety of peoples.
As for my own view, Current public views on gays can be compared to previous public views on blacks. Our generations will be looked at with the same shame we look at recent past generations (1940's-60's) for virtually the same reasons.
I find the irony that a majority of people who find the government intrusive are quick to turn around and expects the government to jump thru hoops when it comes to such a topic.
I voted "It depends," because if they are marrying for lust or money, I disagree. I feel the same way about heterosexual couples, so don't think I'm a gay-basher. But if they are marrying because they are in love with each other, I think that is perfectly fine. (: God may have created us to procreate with the opposite sex, but you really can't help who you fall in love with.
Married couples pay less on income tax. So if gays were allowed to marry, all the straight couples would have to pay more to balance it out. Do you really want to pay more on taxes just so that gay people can enjoy the same rights everyone else has?
I think homosexual people SHOULD have the right to marry. It is almost like discrimination or racsism, the black person is the gay person. If gays want to marry, then that is their problem and their right. Yes it is against God's rule, but if they want to go against God's rule, then let them.
Of course it should be legal. Gays are people just like us. Theyre humans, theyre caring, the only difference is that they love people of the same gender. Christians think its wrong because god says it is. Well I wouldnt waste my time listening to a big, old, dead, sky-dude who contradicts himself every two seconds, and defys logic and science. Besides, what if banning gay marriage is against your religon?
Here's my opinion, and I'm surprised I've encountered no one else who shares it:
If gays want to marry, fine, be my guest. HOWEVER, I also think that it's also the church's decisions whether or not they allow gays to marry at their specific church. If one church does not want to marry gays, then that's their right; you just have to find another one that is comfortable with marrying gays.
Why is this such a big thing? It shouldn't need to be a cause for celebration when it looks like we may be moving towards equal rights. It should be a fucking embarrasment when we're NOT.
Also, Corleone makes a good point - there are MUCH bigger problems with the world. Gay marriage should not be this big a problem with the currant state of things.
If people were getting married for the right reasons, they wouldn't need the government's permission to do so, no matter how disgusting it is. If we didn't give the government this much power, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. If you want to be married, straight or disgusting, be married. By the way, if sex has no possibility of reproducing, then it is naturally not right. No matter what your public stance on this is, deep inside you know this is true. Consider your bubble busted.
You did kinda throw a curve ball at me with the can't approve of this bit. Although I got a good laugh when I realized that you pulled a fast one on me.
Just kidding. Jesus is cool enough to let people be.
However, the gay marriage-debates are great at diverting the public attention away from all the other problems the US has.
I'd like to know why love causes such offence.
I don't buy it for a second.
I mean it's sort of like you wouldn't rewrite the bible or the Qur'an just to make someone happy would you?
No person should be left out of a legal matter based on discriminative properties.
The usa didn't found marriage you dumbass.
Marriage was invented by the church, it should be upto them obviously.
Marriage should be up to the individual church, as many churches do not share the same belief that marriage is between one man, one woman. The 'Church' is supposed to be separated from the 'State', which means it should not be 'illegal' for any individual to marry- specifically because it's not political.
Therefore, gay marriage should be deemed legal, while still not interjecting the laws of freedoms to choose what to/not to do in a given religion.
I get what you're saying but is there a good enough reason that they can marry?
Why don't they just call it something else and just not use the term "married" then everyones happy and there's nothing the church can argue about. But no they want to but in on it, thats what pisses me off, the fucking with someones religion just to make others happy. I see it as far more immoral than keeping marriage between a man and a woman. It opens the gateway for peoples beliefs to be trampled on.
"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22"
That ^^^ mabey, read a fucking book.
At the present, marriage is something that for most people has very little to do with religion. It's also changed quite a bit in other ways since it was invented. It seems silly that there is a hangup about this particular thing.
Because it is the view of the church that those people haven't found god yet, but someday they will. Gays on the other hand are in defiance of him and can't find him as they are obviously gay for life. Thats why anyone can go to church, but they wouldn't be too happy if you walked into church and said "im gay" no sir. Oh and in the catholic faith divorce is a very serious thing and you can be shunned for having one. And im not catholic by the way but fuck, you should atleast know about it if you're going to debate it.
Wow, you are a dumbass...
And that is NOT what that verse says. Read the KJV, buddy. It says "abusers of themselves with mankind" Abuse=Rape.
Learn your shit and read the Constitution for what it is and not what you want it to be
"Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22"
This verse^^^ um yeah thats what it says, dumbass.
"So, you're saying that it should still be illegal because it violates other people's beliefs"
-Um yes thats exactly what im saying dumbass.
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seeing as legalizing gay marriage does not prohibit any religions that I can think of off the top of my head, I am unable to fathom why it's still up for debate. Religions can deny it in their churches, sure, but that shouldn't stop the government from giving it the "go ahead."
I mean if a gay couple are married i don't see how you could look at that ring and not realise where it comes from. They should forget about marriage and save some self respect.
Your argument is invalid and unfair.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this debate, you americans do realise that it doesn't exist outside of america right? This is a world wide issue. It has NO POWER ANYWHERE in the world so how is it relevant to this world debate?
Promising to be with someone for the rest of your life (basically a marriage) is found in many religions not just Christianity some of which accept gays, what if they want a marriage by that religion.
Marriage is something many people do even if they aren't religious and the church has no say in that, why do they get to change the rights of gays?
Some Christian churches would permit a gay marriage; but the GOVERNMENT is stopping them.
AND being gay is less of a choice then a religion, so you say that protecting the rights of a choice is more important then protecting the rights of something you are born?
and those are my problems with your argument
Oh and just a note, I go to a Christian church and my minister supports gay marriage, there are thousands of other churches just like ours who would preform a gay marriage if requested, but some are in places where gay marriage is illegal and if they want to preform the marriage they should be alloud
So you see there is a religious dilemma in this issue that effects not just tradition but gods word. They don't want gays to marry because god is against it (obviously lol), and they don't want to dishonour him.
And then hooray, everyones happy. At least in theory.
Attatching responsibility to ones sexuality is a stupid idea. Being straight, gay or bi doesn't mean that you are immediatly more responsible than another. A system based on assumptions is a terrible system.
"Attatching responsibility to ones sexuality is a stupid idea". Are you actually suggesting that everyone should act sexually irresponsibly? That would mean that pedophilia, rape, incest, and polygamy would all be allowed. Not to mention, the rampant spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Heck, we can just use coat hangers for abortions and if you're against abortion, there's always a dumpster nearby.
There are more straight people that get into trouble than gay people. That's because gay people are a small percentage of the population. You need to use a per capita basis when analyzing statistics. You are correct that some straight people should not be allowed to marry, like brothers and sisters.
Second paragraph is nonsense, utter nonsense. Where did I even HINT that people SHOULD act irresponsibly? What does rape have to do with whether someone is attracted to the same sex, or pedophilia, polygamy, or incest? Where did I ever mention abortion either? That statement was completely off the subject as well, and is just a blatant attempt at making me look bad. Please, quit pulling completely irrelevant things out of your ass, and actually present an arguement for me to analyze if your going to write me a paragraph, or some sort of valid statement. The only thing I said in that sentence you quoted was that assuming someone will act irresponsibly because they're gay, straight, or bi, is stupid. Nothing more. That whole paragraph might as well just not have been there, seeing as it helps your arguement none, and looks to be just an attempt at a smear job on me using things that have no correlation to the topic at hand.
Last paragraph, alright I'll think using your logic again, on a percentage basis, with another example. A good portion of people in prisons are black. Should we assume that since someone is black, they will commit more crimes than someone else, and limit the population's rights for that?
As for my own view, Current public views on gays can be compared to previous public views on blacks. Our generations will be looked at with the same shame we look at recent past generations (1940's-60's) for virtually the same reasons.
If gays want to marry, fine, be my guest. HOWEVER, I also think that it's also the church's decisions whether or not they allow gays to marry at their specific church. If one church does not want to marry gays, then that's their right; you just have to find another one that is comfortable with marrying gays.
Also, Corleone makes a good point - there are MUCH bigger problems with the world. Gay marriage should not be this big a problem with the currant state of things.
Not because I dislike gay people but because I don't want them to go through the horrors of Divorce.
Jk. I support same-sex marriage. Love is a beautiful thing. :)
I think if People read my comments carefully and here me out, they'll see where I'm coming from.