Gay marriage.

[frizzle]

I don't believe in gay marriage, as it does go against religious morals, and it would be extremly unfair to the church and people who support it to allow gay marriages within it.

But I do agree with Civil unions if two people wish to do.

 

[fortiesfun]

I don't believe in gay marriage, as it does go against religious morals, and it would be extremly unfair to the church and people who support it to allow gay marriages within it..

SOME religion's morals... Many religions, including some Christian denominations, have no issue with gay people or gay marriage at all.

 

[frizzle]

I'm sorry, alot of what I say does cover alot of area, I didn't mean it like that, what I meant to say was exactly what you said. Alot of people's religious morals, mainly catholics in the christian community I would hazard at taking a guess, but again, others aswell.

 

[fortiesfun]

I'm sorry, alot of what I say does cover alot of area, I didn't mean it like that, what I meant to say was exactly what you said. Alot of people's religious morals, mainly catholics in the christian community I would hazard at taking a guess, but again, others aswell.

Right, so why should some people's morals restrict what other people can do? If Catholics (using your example) object to gay marriage, shouldn't they refuse to perform them and refuse to take part in them, rather than try to keep those who don't find it objectionable from exercising their personal prerogatives? Why should I not be able to marry a gay partner because Catholics object? (Leaving aside that I am already married. )

 

[whatireallywant]

As for the benefits of marriage, according to the government? - Totally FOR!

Religious marriage? Since I want to preserve separation of church and state (or rather, get back TO separation of church and state!), the government should stay out of it. That not only means that fundamentalist churches should be able to refuse gay marriage (I don't agree with their position ethically, but it's not for the government to say; if we step in too much, they can turn it around and try to run the government themselves - er, actually aren't they already trying to do that?), it also means that denominations like the one I am most closely associated with (Unitarian-Universalist), which do perform gay marriages, should be allowed to do so and they should be treated just as any other marriage.

 

[Not_Punny]

I am 100% behind gay marriage, but I believe it will be a long and bloody battle.

========================================================
If the PURPOSE of marriage is the continuation of human life, morals and values into the future, then DENIAL of "marriage" to gays is the same as saying: We want your "kind" to disappear -- we do NOT want you guys to "go forth and multiply."
====================================================

Mankind has been trying to stamp out homosexualty under one pretext or another for two thousand years. To except this to change peacefully is a bit unrealistic.

Sadly, I believe it will take some major riots and quite possibly a martyr too in order to change the course of history.

*sigh*

 

[aquadude]

Please read this post carefully as I will likely be taking an unpopular position, but I will do my best to explain myself clearly. I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union. With out getting into that whole Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve stupidity I am in favor of Gay civil unions. The whole issue I think stems from the wording, gay marriage scares the Bible belt for reasons that we are all aware of, many view the issue as an attack on “Christian Values.” However if two people are willing to commit to each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to be joined legally, with all the benefits and handicaps that are associated with “marriage.” I honestly think that the gay community could benefit from a change in nomenclature; it may prove to be more productive in establishing legal rights and keeping religion out of the debate. Now feel free to misread, twist words and attack.

I completely agree with you. I understand why gays cannot get married within the church, if the teachings say that homosexuality is wrong, then obviously the gays wont be alowed to be married in that church. And there is no good reason why gays should not be alowed to be legally married. The only part that I dissagree with is having to change the name of the status. Heterosexuals get married outside of the church all the time and those are considered marriages not "civil unions" so if gays are allowed to be joined then then it should be called what it is, a marriage. But that is just my opinion (I am gay, btw, if that makes any difference at all)

 

[frizzle]

Right, so why should some people's morals restrict what other people can do? If Catholics (using your example) object to gay marriage, shouldn't they refuse to perform them and refuse to take part in them, rather than try to keep those who don't find it objectionable from exercising their personal prerogatives? Why should I not be able to marry a gay partner because Catholics object? (Leaving aside that I am already married. )

Because you would be getting married in the house of THEIR Lord.

 

[aquadude]

Because you would be getting married in the house of THEIR Lord.

No you would not be, if you dont' get married in the catholic church then "THEIR Lord" as you said has no part in it what so ever.

 

[fortiesfun]

Because you would be getting married in the house of THEIR Lord.

Sorry, a touch of ambiguity made my point confusing. I can understand perfectly why Catholics (or whatever) can prevent me from marrying in THEIR church, but right now they prevent me from doings so (legally) in ANY church. MY LORD thinks it is just fine for gay people to marry, but marriages performed in MY church still aren't recognized in the US. Why should their definition of God carry the day, even in my church?

 

[B_Think_Kink]

I think if we take the ever popular religious view on marriage... two people who are over 55 should not be allowed to be married.. or those who cannot have children. If we want to stick to the good old rule that marriage is for people who want to continue on the species. I believe the catholic view is so outdated that it is totally pointless to have it as a religion.

 

[ganja4me]

I think gay marriage should be allowed. If the argument against gay marriage has to do with religion then shouldn't atheist marriage not be allowed as well? Think about how bad it must suck if you are gay and always wanted to get married. It is a messed up situation.

 

[whatireallywant]

I think if we take the ever popular religious view on marriage... two people who are over 55 should not be allowed to be married.. or those who cannot have children. If we want to stick to the good old rule that marriage is for people who want to continue on the species. I believe the catholic view is so outdated that it is totally pointless to have it as a religion.

I have said something similar. I said that if marriage is only about having children, I should never be allowed to marry (since I have never wanted them and have now had a tubal ligation). But of course, I don't agree with that. As far as whether or not I will ever marry? Hard to say. I think I've always kind of thought I wouldn't, but that didn't mean I never wanted to.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

I have said something similar. I said that if marriage is only about having children, I should never be allowed to marry (since I have never wanted them and have now had a tubal ligation). But of course, I don't agree with that. As far as whether or not I will ever marry? Hard to say. I think I've always kind of thought I wouldn't, but that didn't mean I never wanted to.

While you did go off on a tangent.. remember this is about gay couples... you can get married.. the church will do that gladly for you... gay couples dont have that option everywhere.

 

[bobabooey69]

I think everyone should marry whomever they choose.
Who the hell are people making such a big deal out of this?
It boggles my mind.

 

[matticus201]

I think the funniest thing about this post is that here on a big dick site he won't write COCK. Like that's what we would find upsetting in this post.

I didn't mean to be combative. I was concuring in a sense, but just wondering how this argument gets so frequently reversed. Making gay marriage legal has implications for state marriages, but churches could continue to marry people or not, as they currently chose. Still, the Bible belt boogey man is that somehow recognizing gay marriage would force churches to perform them - untrue and irrelevant.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[GoneA]

I think everyone should marry whomever they choose.
Who the hell are people making such a big deal out of this?
It boggles my mind.

You can see why gay men and women are making "such a big deal" out of it, right? Since same-gender "marriages" aren't afforded the same rights as opposite-sex marriages, that's reason enough to cause a stink.

 

[canuck_pa]

Gay marriage has been legal here in Canada for a few years and despite the ravings of some religious zealots, the sun still comes up everyday and the world continues to turn on its axis. If two people are committed to each other they should have the right to get married and their rights should be protected by law.

There are still some states in the US that do not have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. You can be fired from your job for being gay.

 

[BurningVenus]

I am against gay marriage, because in my view marriage is a religious union.

Fine then. As long as we have separation of church and state, continue practicing whatever holier-than-thou religion you ascribe to-- which is your right -- but then GET THE HELL OUT OF THIER WAY as they go the local courthouse exercise their right to get married if they choose to do so.

 

[Extremecummer]

Is the person who wrote the question aware of the fact that it is written so that either way it works? The question relates NOT to whether you like gay marriage but as to whether you have a stand on it, either way. :O)