Gay Marriage: Yes or No
- Thread starter daydreamer
- Start date
I took the term "marriage" in the religious sense... so I voted 'No' purely because in religious society, homosexuality is not acceptible.
Cicil unions I think all people have a right to... if that is what they want.
Cicil unions I think all people have a right to... if that is what they want.
S
Shai Gar
Except you're all arguing that marriage isn't religious, and yet the argument is for homosexuals to get married within an institutionalised religion.
If they've found a religion that isn't against it, or have formed their own, fine. However institutionalised religions are against it in their dogma and should therefore not wed them.
Your arguments are moot.
If they've found a religion that isn't against it, or have formed their own, fine. However institutionalised religions are against it in their dogma and should therefore not wed them.
Your arguments are moot.
...
Does anyone in this thread realize that even under current law, NOBODY has to marry people if they don't want to? If you ask a pastor to marry you and somebody else, he can just say no.
Having a marriage license doesn't mean you HAVE to use it when asked.
So, I don't get where all the argument is coming from.
Are we assuming this would be changed if same sex marriages were legalized?
Does anyone in this thread realize that even under current law, NOBODY has to marry people if they don't want to? If you ask a pastor to marry you and somebody else, he can just say no.
Having a marriage license doesn't mean you HAVE to use it when asked.
So, I don't get where all the argument is coming from.
Are we assuming this would be changed if same sex marriages were legalized?
In Sweden you don't even need to be a Christian to be a priest. The reason is 'Equal Oppurtunities'.... I think that is brilliant... sorry for the off topic.
You don't need to be Christian to be a priest in America. Why should Christians be the only ones who can be priests?
S
Shai Gar
From what I've seen of american televangelism shows, priests aren't christian in the USA.
S
Shai Gar
I don't like the idea of a religious institution being legislated.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
So glad you asked!
When Maggie Gallagher, the director of the National Organization for Marriage (the organization which works hardest and spends the most money to protect the traditional definition of marriage) was asked directly what the practical consequences of same sex marriage were she gave these five...
1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.
2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.
3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated in any way.
4. Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).
5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.
Wow!
This is about the government allowing gay marriage not religious institutions.
And think about it, you are legislating against religious institutions who would like to marry gay people by keeping it illegal.
S
Shai Gar
I hate morons.
Hmmm, I'm not really against gay marriage, I'm against gay weddings. Big difference. Marriage is the love, fidelity and living together. Weddings are a religious ceremony.
Weddings require a marriage celebrant of a religion. Religions are against it. Governments should not force religions (private clubs) to change their beliefs, dogma or traditions. If they're going to force them to change, they should first force them to be logical and present scientific evidence for their beliefs.
However as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", then no government should force religions or religious practitioners to abandon their religious beliefs.
Hmmm, I'm not really against gay marriage, I'm against gay weddings. Big difference. Marriage is the love, fidelity and living together. Weddings are a religious ceremony.
Weddings require a marriage celebrant of a religion. Religions are against it. Governments should not force religions (private clubs) to change their beliefs, dogma or traditions. If they're going to force them to change, they should first force them to be logical and present scientific evidence for their beliefs.
However as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", then no government should force religions or religious practitioners to abandon their religious beliefs.
S
Shai Gar
You're skipping over some very important facts here. As I stated earlier in the thread: What's really being argued over is the equal rights for civil unions and marriages, and having a church wedding. Just because someone likes the idea of having a wedding in a church, doesn't mean the church is obligated to providing the wedding. Once again it comes down to being a self-entitled prat.
I'm extremely against Christians allowing homosexual marriage because I don't like hypocrisy. Their bible is against it, therefore they shouldn't be lenient. They ought to straight out realise that their religious beliefs are disgustingly stupid and abandon them.
Who said legalizing gay marriage would force religious institutions to change their beliefs?
That's probably not the way it is going to happen. It would simply allow religious institutions who want to marry gays to marry them. This would expand religious freedom rather then limiting it.
Churches probably wont be obligated to marry gays that is a bit melodramatic.
Ooooh I get it.
Doesn't their bible also require them to be lenient? To turn the other cheek, To love thy neighbor as thy self.
Oh I think I get your point (finally lol) but before you go ahead and call me a moron again you should note that the title of the thread said gay marriage not gay weddings. Big difference...
S
Shai Gar
Doesn't matter. Religions should NOT be allowed to break their religious beliefs.
What the government should be doing is ending support for religious institutions, and making all marriage into a Civil Union, with the same rights for all, be they straight or gay unions.
That's part of what the fight is about. Forcing religions to open their doors. The fight is being fought in the government, and in the religious arenas.
With their enemies sure. But Jesus didn't come to lessen the law, he came to enforce it, and make it harder to get into heaven. You're not supposed to break the law of god, god's not going to forgive a person who goes up to a church and says; "I know that this is against your beliefs, I know your god said no. I know that he's not allowing it at all, but why don't we just break it."
You're not understanding Christianity. It's not just the gospels, it's the gospels, and leviticus, and genesis, and anywhere else god speaks up.
S
Shai Gar
Except half of what is being argued, is the weddings. That's the implication.
Civil Unions with full rights should be afforded to same sex, and opposite sex couples. Government Marriage should be abolished.
Is this about being just or about punishing religious folk?
That's reasonable enough.
Well I personally think if a church does not want to wed gays it shouldn't have to.
The entire christian religion is based off the forgiveness of sins it is why Christ died.
You know the will of god?
Why harp on leviticus and ignore the gospels? Isn't that exactly what homophobic religious nut jobs are doing?