Gay Marriage

Yep, one of these threads again. So, let's discuss gay marriage and whether it should be allowed or not.

I believe that my thoughts are pretty much known - why do we bar them from marriage? It is your right to disagree with it, but it is not your right to not disallow them happiness.

Thus, I am pro-gay-marriage.

It is not an issue that affects me, so I don't really care, either way. Let the people (Rather, the states) decide on whether or not it should be allowed in today's society.

Marriage? No. Civil partnerships? Sure.

Of course, the reason I disagree with it extends beyond simple religion (though, to be truthful, as a Christian, it goes against what I believe. NOTE FOR THE SLOW, this does not mean I'm homophobic, I just choose not to support it. Learn the difference.). From what I understand, many gay couples only get married for the benefits involved. Not only that, but most gay marriages fall apart. (At least, the ones we hear about do.)

I know the whole love-is-love thing will be brought up, but is it really love when you're only doing it for the benefits?

Right, we need some definitions here, fast.

Does "Gay Marriage" mean "Gays can choose others of the same gender as a life-partner and gain all the benefits of married couples." or does it mean "Gays can force churches to marry them!"

I'm all for the former, not for the latter. Same with most people who want to allow gay marriage. I mean, seriously, what secular heterosexual couple would go around saying "Yeah, we went to the government offices yesterday and now we're civil unionized!" None, they'd say "...and now we're married."

I see no reason why two people who love each other should not be allowed to get married.

And to those who oppose it: If it isn't hurting you, why ban it?

Originally Posted by gdwarf

Right, we need some definitions here, fast.

Does "Gay Marriage" mean "Gays can choose others of the same gender as a life-partner and gain all the benefits of married couples." or does it mean "Gays can force churches to marry them!"

I'm all for the former, not for the latter. Same with most people who want to allow gay marriage. I mean, seriously, what secular heterosexual couple would go around saying "Yeah, we went to the government offices yesterday and now we're civil unionized!" None, they'd say "...and now we're married."

I meant the former. Should I edit my post?

Originally Posted by Twilight Wolf

I see no reason why two people who love each other should not be allowed to get married.

And to those who oppose it: If it isn't hurting you, why ban it?

I, quite simply, do not think it is right. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist, but I've always seen marriage as, well, a union between a man and a woman. (And no, this is not because of how I was raised or my religion, it's just a viewpoint I've developed over the years on my own based upon how I view the world.)

This is why I support civil partnerships rather than marriage. GDwarf said it better than I ever could.

From my understanding, Civil Unions have the same benefits as marriage, but not the title of being married. From what I understand gay couples want the title of marriage as well, since it holds meaning for a great many people.

I say, have the government recognize gay marriage, and let the churches decide whether they will marry gay couples or not.

This is why I support civil partnerships rather than marriage. GDwarf said it better than I ever could.

Unless I misunderstood him, one of GDwarf's points was that it should be marriage, but that it needn't be religious. And I agree.

I think we should keep secular marriage separate from religious marriage. But calling secular marriage "marriage" only when it's heterosexual and "civil union" only when it's homosexual makes absolutely no sense and is pointless. If we agree that they should be the exact same institutions, calling them by different names is just blind tradition.

As a religious institution, marriage can never be affected by the legalization of homosexual unions, regardless of what they're called. My beliefs about marriage are purely religious, and supported in beneficial ways by the legal institution. I see no fairness in failing to extend the same to others and their beliefs purely on the basis of their beliefs not matching mine. I would, under the system of religious neutrality, have to deny marriage benefits under the law to myself.

It's simple: whatever "marriage" is currently called in the legal arena, that's what is Constitutionally mandated for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. That is the end of this debate.

I also am pro-gay-marriage. You can't deny someone the right to marriage because they happened to be born a certain way. I have one thing to say to the people who want to deny them that right. Not cool man, just, not cool.

Hahaha, no one should give a **** in my affairs if I would choose to marry another male. That rule should extend as far as that the only limit is forcing (e.g, I shouldn't be able to force the church to marry us).

Originally Posted by Link?

Hahaha, no one should give a **** in my affairs if I would choose to marry another male. That rule should extend as far as that the only limit is forcing (e.g, I shouldn't be able to force the church to marry us).

That's pretty much my opinion, although churches should reconsider not allowing homos to marry in their churches. Not just letting your life be dictated by a book, but letting your life be guided by your own experiences...the bible, it should be considered to be more like a book of guidelines anyway, not a book of rules.

I see no reason why they shouldn't have the same economic and social benefits that heterosexual couples have. If they love each other, who am I or you to say "No you don't"?

The only actual debates that come of this topic are the few crazy religious people who's views revolve around "no! because its an abomination!" yada yada.

The civil also disagree only because people take the word marriage in the wrong sense. I don't know any gay couples who would get married in a bid to force churches to recognize them, because the law recognizes them and that is a much higher force. Law trumps Church.

The real question here is would you deny someone happiness? Gay marriage is simply asking for what is theirs. A straight guy and his wife have rights and certain entitlements, explain the difference between a straight couple and a gay couple? Once you strip away gender you really don't have any grounds.

I think it's key in our countries, since the church is so dominantly influential in our laws, but in places where moral relativism has allowed for a different path, where marriage is not a human right -- may not even exist or be played differently (Sharia: One guy to four wives, etc.) it's more questionable.

I mean, I have no objectionr to people loving insolong as it harms noone else (which it doesn't seem to, so) -- but a legal union if it's just a superficial event doesn't seem to be required in some cultures.

Just musing, these don't necessarily reflect my opinions.

The only actual debates that come of this topic are the few crazy religious people who's views revolve around "no! because its an abomination!" yada yada.

Yeah.

Nutter: 'It's unnatural!'
Other: 'Compared to what, walking on water?'

The civil also disagree only because people take the word marriage in the wrong sense. I don't know any gay couples who would get married in a bid to force churches to recognize them, because the law recognizes them and that is a much higher force. Law trumps Church.

I don't get how the one passage contradicts the basic orgy that was the old testament.

I mean, yeah, the book of self-contradiction has a passage that says 'A man may not lie with another man' (Alongside 'Thou shalt not consume the onion', and various other satanic vegetables) -- but that should not prevent people sharing the legal benefits of a country built off said book.

Sorry, but anyone who is against gay marriage is crazy in the head, in my book. There is no written law or rule that says Gays are unnatural or anymore wrong than a straight people.

Us gays were born gay.
Heteros were born hetero.
And so, why is it that we are questioned and straight people are not?And whoever said Gay couples fall apart easily.. That's bs. It has nothing to do with male and male or male and female. It's about the two people in the relationship. That's all.

America claims to be a free country... and yet gays are faced with "Welcome to America, where it's okay to be gay... as long as you don't want to get married."

Booooooo

Originally Posted by Enuf3

Us gays were born gay.
Heteros were born hetero.

Really? I've been daaamn heterosexual the first 15 years of my life. So I must say, really, that the "you were born gay" is quite a fallacy.

Link? I thought I was straight in the beginning to. I even tried being straight. It comes down to how you're brought up and what type of surroundings you grow up in. I was led to believe gays were disgusting and honestly convinced myself I was straight. Then one day I woke up and said.. No.. I don't want to be with women. I like men. Get over it.

You were born gay. lol You didn't "turn gay" as people like to say.