Same-Sex Marriage

[goodshot911SNK]

okay that's what I thought I really don't see it like that though there are not that many homosexual people this is the best ideal that will work I think for both sides rite now it is not fare nor is it freedom that those who are oppressed with rites they should be entitled the have some sort of "civil unions" it is only fare this is a FREE country so don't you think us saying no is unconstitutional?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

So if straight people were the minority, and there were only about 3million straight people.... it should be this way then? Nothing for them?

The rights of the minority should be equal to the rights of the majority  

[Fyre in teh Hoal]

Even though I am a devout Christian, I support gay rights, and I think that gays should be able to get married with certain rules. For example, it should be to the pastor's discretion, not the couple's. The pastor may not want to marry them because of his beliefs, and that is totally okay.

 

[XcoldhandsX]

I think that church and state have been allowed to mix too much.
All homosexuals should be allowed to participate in a civil union no matter what.
When you bring God into all of this though, it becomes the church's issue, not the government's. So in short, if no priest wants to marry a man and a man or a woman and a woman then that's something that needs to be brought up with the church. I don't think the government should be able to force the church to do something.  

[goodshot911SNK]

yes I completely agree its not a government issue its the peoples issue if you don't like it move

I completely disagree with being a homosexual BUT I DO believe that this is america where a man and a man can do whatever they want without destroying this nation so let there be civil unions  

[Skibblez]

Simple fact: mariage is a relgious institution, not a governmental one. the bible (where mariage came from) strictly condems homsexuality, and therefore condems homo mariage. if the goverment tries to make homo mariage legal, that is an intrusion on Christians religion. the government has no right to do that, it is a violation of our first ammendment rights. they were also trying to pass a law that if any pastor would not marry a homo couple that his church would lose it's tax exempt status- the government forcing christians to violate their own beliefs!! now if 2 little homos want a "government union" that's their deal, whatev. but they better not try to call it mariage, and they better not try to force christians to support them.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

If marriage is a religious institution it DOES NOT belong in the government. If the government gets to recognize a religious ceremony, then it has to accept ALL religious ceremonies. Let's see... United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, some liberal Baptist Churches, and Unitarian Universalists are all CHRISTIAN churches that allow same-sex marriage... they disagree with YOUR interpretation of the bible. If we get a first amendment freedom of religion, we get the right to interpret the bible as we like, by not allowing gay marriage you're putting an infraction on those churches rights by not recognizing their ceremonies. Legalizing will not force same-sex marriages in all churches.

What if my church says that straight people shouldn't marry? Then the government is "taking" away my rights. Make sense? Of course not! But, arguably, I could say it does... because Saint Paul says that it's better not to marry at all... so let's all be single forever.

To further what you say, if they aren't going to allow all marriages, and it takes away YOUR interpretation the government shouldn't allow marriage at all, and everyone should be forced to get government recognition through the government.

Bible verses don't count as law. If you're eating red meat, and enjoying some poly-synthetic clothing (prominent in most clothing stores) you're a sinning by some Christian standards. There are too many varying degrees of interpretations to say that what you believe is the "right" beliefs. And again, I have my right to my religion, or no religion at all. Neither of our religions have a say in government matters. Churches don't get taxed, churches don't get a say in the government.  

[goodshot911SNK]

Quote:

To further what you say, if they aren't going to allow all marriages, and it takes away YOUR interpretation the government shouldn't allow marriage at all, and everyone should be forced to get government recognition through the government.

you know you may have stumbled on something there that's a solution that I think would work have a religious marriage and a government marriage with the gov one you get the tax breaks and benefits and recension of a couple and a religious one is just for you and partner no matter if its a horse of man on man  

[space-ace1]

Dark_Spartan117

RenFlower

Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry in a church like hetereo couples are?

because its against the churchs beliefs and there isnt a way to change it, unless god suddenly grows fond of homosexual couples

well, look man, no offense to anyone religious, but the bible is corrupt.
God didnt come down to earth and give a priest of the church the bible and told him to make one billion copies of it. It was written by man.
I believe in the mian idea of the bible, but one stuff like this I make my own decisions on what I think god would want.
And I dont think god would want a fraction of his people to be unhappy just because their sexuality is different than the larger fraction of the world.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Just to add to this:

The Bible wasn't "written." A council of people, presided over by a Roman Emperor, assembled a selection of manuscripts from across thousands of years of time and different cultural traditions, some of them even written in different languages from totally different language families, and declared it canon. There are over 1000 recognized errors in the New Testament. For example, the genealogy of Jesus is reported in two different ways between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and both versions differ from the records in the Old Testament. So, if anything, the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy should be called into question here.  

[Pumona]

Skibblez

Simple fact: mariage is a relgious institution, not a governmental one. the bible (where mariage came from) strictly condems homsexuality, and therefore condems homo mariage. if the goverment tries to make homo mariage legal, that is an intrusion on Christians religion. the government has no right to do that, it is a violation of our first ammendment rights. they were also trying to pass a law that if any pastor would not marry a homo couple that his church would lose it's tax exempt status- the government forcing christians to violate their own beliefs!! now if 2 little homos want a "government union" that's their deal, whatev. but they better not try to call it mariage, and they better not try to force christians to support them.

I agree with one thing that you said " marriage is a relgious institution, not a governmental one". Government needs to stop getting involved in everything.  

[Lord Izaran]

RenFlower

Now for Ren's Rambles, why I'm pro-same sex marriage heart :

1. They're going to have sex anyways, why not do it holy.

2. Why should people who happen to be attracted to people of the same gender be denied the rights straight people have?

3. Their attractions to each other are biologically and chemically the same as straight people's attractions.

4. Just because their hormone's, or feelings are different doesn't mean they aren't as good as the rest of us.

5. The classic Love is Love, regardless of gender.

I have a HUGE schlock raid on Reason 1

Homosexual sexual relations is Sin, it is Unholy. So making it Holy is not possible. While I support civil unions, Marriage is sacred and divine. It is Holy and pure, and Sin cannot be allowed to fester in it. That is my belief. Other then that, Same-sex couples can do whatever they want, as long as it is not declared the holy act of marriage.

Thats my stance. I am a recovered homophobe, thanks to my lovely fiancee, but I still stand firm on the word 'Marriage'. It is defined a 'a Holy union between a man and a woman'. Not men and men, or women and women. Or dare I say: Shemale and shemale, or hefemale and hefemale. It is STRICTLY Male and Female. ^_^ God Bless Us All, for in His arms we can all become eternally at peace.  

[Hallie Neko-chan]

Rainbowfied Mouse

If marriage is a religious institution it DOES NOT belong in the government. If the government gets to recognize a religious ceremony, then it has to accept ALL religious ceremonies. Let's see... United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, some liberal Baptist Churches, and Unitarian Universalists are all CHRISTIAN churches that allow same-sex marriage... they disagree with YOUR interpretation of the bible. If we get a first amendment freedom of religion, we get the right to interpret the bible as we like, by not allowing gay marriage you're putting an infraction on those churches rights by not recognizing their ceremonies. Legalizing will not force same-sex marriages in all churches.

What if my church says that straight people shouldn't marry? Then the government is "taking" away my rights. Make sense? Of course not! But, arguably, I could say it does... because Saint Paul says that it's better not to marry at all... so let's all be single forever.

To further what you say, if they aren't going to allow all marriages, and it takes away YOUR interpretation the government shouldn't allow marriage at all, and everyone should be forced to get government recognition through the government.

Bible verses don't count as law. If you're eating red meat, and enjoying some poly-synthetic clothing (prominent in most clothing stores) you're a sinning by some Christian standards. There are too many varying degrees of interpretations to say that what you believe is the "right" beliefs. And again, I have my right to my religion, or no religion at all. Neither of our religions have a say in government matters. Churches don't get taxed, churches don't get a say in the government.

Some of that may be true, but if you think about all of the religions over here, if that religion is against something, the government should not interfere, because that tramples on the beliefs of thousands of others who follow that religion. It would be like making up a company with strict rules like dress code where people can only wear white and black, and someone shows up in bright orange, and they are allowed because they're "exempt". That wouldn't be right, nor would it be fair, and it would go against what the people who originally founded the company wanted. I'm in no way against homosexuals and bisexuals, but I am against giving extra privileges to anybody because they want something more. If you want something more, make it yourself.

Now, if someone wanted to, they should have the right to start their own revised version of a Christian church, one that incorporates their own beliefs. Like for instance, I was baptized in a "Liberal Catholic" church because the Roman Catholic church didn't agree with my parents being a Luthern and a Catholic.

And yes, if there is a religion that allows gay marriage, then by all means, they should go for it.

I believe that religious beliefs should be respected and honored, but I also believe that there are ways around it so that everyone can be happy whether they're heterosexual or homosexual.

What I'm going to say might upset some people but I feel it needs to be said anyway. Religion is just a belief. If you want to believe something similar to someone else's religion, but you don't like all of the rules and stipulations, why would you join that religion? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the ideas that you like about that religion and add in your own ideas to make it your ideal? If you have a group of people following, which I'm pretty sure that there's bound to be some out there who agree with you, then it will be a religion all in itself.

Looking up the word, "religion" in my dictionary comes up with this:

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by  

[Lord Bitememan]

Hallie Neko-chan

Some of that may be true, but if you think about all of the religions over here, if that religion is against something, the government should not interfere,

The government isn't interfering. Gay marriage has been legalized in 5 states now, and in not a one of them did anyone pass a law saying that churches had to approve of it, much less perform them. In every instance where it has been legalized it has largely been a function of the state and what churches that do provide recognition. In the states where they don't recognize it, you're still stuck with the problem Mouse articulates. That is a case of the state granting recognition to some religion's doctrine and not others, which patently violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Quote:

because that tramples on the beliefs of thousands of others who follow that religion.

It doesn't, not anymore than interracial marriage tramples on the beliefs of World Church of the Creator of the legal status of eating beef tramples on the beliefs of America's Hindu population. Instead what it does is strips away power from a set of churches to tell everyone else in society, believer or non, what they can do. Nowhere in the Constitution did government grant a veto on policy to the church.

Quote:

It would be like making up a company with strict rules like dress code where people can only wear white and black, and someone shows up in bright orange, and they are allowed because they're "exempt".

That's a poor analogy because government and the church are not one entity. A better analogy would be this. Work never confronted the dress code issue, and so deferred to the unions. The unions said workers will wear only black and white. One day a non-union employee asks if he can wear bright orange. The supervisor of his department checks over everything in the company rulebook, notes that company rules and union rules are different, and says "sure, that's a rule for union members. You're not in the union, so it's up to you." The unions then throw a tizzy and say "we only allow our workers to wear black and white, you're violating our members rights." The supervisor then responds "that's a union rule. We're not going to hold our non-union employees to the same rules that the union members hold themselves to. Nobody is saying union members have to wear bright orange, just that the non-union members that want to can."

Now that's a closer analogy.  

[Lysander the silent]

My argument for it is just this: It's not like it's affecting me in any way. I could care much more for it, but it's just not a big deal for me. A bigger case would be the health care bill, but that's another story in itself. Granted it would help if both sides of the argument for and against would stop being whiny little you-know-whats.