Gay marriage.... should it be legal or no?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:12 PM GMT
    As bi man im all for gay rights, with that said it strongly believe that gay marriage should remain illegal. In my opinion marriage is governed by the church and the state should have no say in it what so ever. Marriage, until quite recently, was controlled by the church; since its inception marriage has been the union of a man and a women in a religious ceremony. I hate the fact that states( gov'ts) has managed to make a profit off marriages and that something that once had religious connotation is now controlled by the state. Gay couples in my eyes are entitled to civil unions because they don't carry a religious value; however according to most if not all religions homosexuality is a sin, thus the reason for not condoning gay marriages. Religion and state must be separated and marriage is clearly a religious issue. I would like point out that i am not a very religious man, however i do respect the right of religions to exist and maintain sovereignty over religious aspects.
    I don't want to offend anybody i simply want to know ur views on this topic, if you dont agree with what i say i dont care it's my right to have an opinion and will not be ashamed or apologize for my beliefs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:24 PM GMT
    hotnrough saidAs bi man im all for gay rights, with that said it strongly believe that gay marriage should remain illegal. In my opinion marriage is governed by the church and the state should have no say in it what so ever. Marriage, until quite recently, was controlled by the church; since its inception marriage has been the union of a man and a women in a religious ceremony. I hate the fact that states( gov'ts) has managed to make a profit off marriages and that something that once had religious connotation is now controlled by the state. Gay couples in my eyes are entitled to civil unions because they don't carry a religious value; however according to most if not all religions homosexuality is a sin, thus the reason for not condoning gay marriages. Religion and state must be separated and marriage is clearly a religious issue. I would like point out that i am not a very religious man, however i do respect the right of religions to exist and maintain sovereignty over religious aspects.
    I don't want to offend anybody i simply want to know ur views on this topic, if you dont agree with what i say i dont care it's my right to have an opinion and will not be ashamed or apologize for my beliefs.


    Civil unions are fine, but marriage itself is a religious institution and because of separation of church and state, it really can't be redefined by the state. As you have pointed out, I also see this as a problem because if the state redefines marriage, then the church is going to be accused of discrimination, if they will not marry gays. The state should not be messing with a religious institution. In my opinion, they need to formulate a DIFFERENT institution for gay couples that is not governed by the church.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:28 PM GMT
    it doesn't matter if u think its wrong or right it doesn't matter if everyone thinks its wrong or right you CAN NOT give someone rights and not others. they need to erase the word marriage from the law and make every1 have civil unions marriage stays in the church and the church stays out of the constitution...

    now on a religious note (believe it or not im religious) i think it should be legal anways cuz the bible says X is wrong and X is right, but you'll always have free will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:28 PM GMT
    Then, should hetero couples be recognized by the gov't as civilly unionized or married? If it's married, then all couples seeking that designation should be granted as much and all the benefits given to one form of couple should be given to the other. Equivalency is not equality. What I have with my partner of 22 years is far more "sacred" than what most straight married couples have and you can take that to the bank, the altar or the burning ring of fire.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:33 PM GMT
    waxon saidit doesn't matter if u think its wrong or right it doesn't matter if everyone thinks its wrong or right you CAN NOT give someone rights and not others. they need to erase the word marriage from the law and make every1 have civil unions marriage stays in the church and the church stays out of the constitution...

    now on a religious not (believe it or not im religious) i think it should be legal anways cuz the bible says X is wrong and X is right, but you'll always have free will.


    You can't make the church get rid of marriage. They have the right to marry people because marriage is ordained by God. To force churches to do away with marrriage. would not be right. Gay couples don't have to have the same insitutuon as the church in order to have the same rights. This is not necessary. A NEW institution for gay couples can be created with the same legal rights as marriage .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:34 PM GMT
    Haha- this thread has G_Farce written all over it- He probably created an alt-account just to start this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:37 PM GMT
    McGay saidThen, should hetero couples be recognized by the gov't as civilly unionized or married? If it's married, then all couples seeking that designation should be granted as much and all the benefits given to one form of couple should be given to the other. Equivalency is not equality. What I have with my partner of 22 years is far more "sacred" than what most straight married couples have and you can take that to the bank, the altar or the burning ring of fire.



    I beleive there should be 2 separate insitutions--one for gays and 1 for str8's, with each having the same legal rights by the governement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:38 PM GMT
    TROLL

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:39 PM GMT
    play_dead saidHaha- this thread has G_Farce written all over it- He probably created an alt-account just to start this.


    No, I did not start this thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:41 PM GMT
    G_Force said
    McGay saidThen, should hetero couples be recognized by the gov't as civilly unionized or married? If it's married, then all couples seeking that designation should be granted as much and all the benefits given to one form of couple should be given to the other. Equivalency is not equality. What I have with my partner of 22 years is far more "sacred" than what most straight married couples have and you can take that to the bank, the altar or the burning ring of fire.



    I beleive there should be 2 separate insitutions--one for gays and 1 for str8's, with each having the same legal rights by the governement.


    I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm firmly convinced, that you are a moron.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:41 PM GMT
    Oh goodness.. >_<
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:41 PM GMT
    G_Force said
    waxon saidit doesn't matter if u think its wrong or right it doesn't matter if everyone thinks its wrong or right you CAN NOT give someone rights and not others. they need to erase the word marriage from the law and make every1 have civil unions marriage stays in the church and the church stays out of the constitution...

    now on a religious not (believe it or not im religious) i think it should be legal anways cuz the bible says X is wrong and X is right, but you'll always have free will.


    You can't make the church get rid of marriage. They have the right to marry people because marriage is ordained by God. To force churches to do away with marrriage. would not be right. Gay couples don't have to have the same insitutuon as the church in order to have the same rights. This is not necessary. A NEW institution for gay couples can be created with the same legal rights as marriage .


    no where in my message does it say to make the church get rid of marriage, i said they need to get it out of the government and keep it in church.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:42 PM GMT
    You guys assume stuff all the time and I was told never to assume because you spell assume by making an "ass" out of "u" and "me"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:43 PM GMT
    With or without assuming anything, you're making an ass out of you, rest assured.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:43 PM GMT
    You need to make a distinction between civil marriage and church-sanctioned marriage. In the US, people aren't required to have an ordained minister perform marriage ceremonies.

    Otherwise, without civil marriage, gay couples do not enjoy the same rights as straight couples (i.e., health care, inheritance, adoption, hospital visitation, etc.). There is no reasonable basis on which to deny these same rights to gay couples. No one is requiring the church to 'bless' such unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:44 PM GMT
    G_Force said
    play_dead saidHaha- this thread has G_Farce written all over it- He probably created an alt-account just to start this.


    No, I did not start this thread.


    Of course you didn't......... icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:45 PM GMT
    McGay saidWith or without assuming anything, you're making an ass out of you, rest assured.


    No, because I'm not the one assuming. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:46 PM GMT
    You don't need to. You're doing just fine without that excuse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:46 PM GMT
    play_dead said
    G_Force said
    play_dead saidHaha- this thread has G_Farce written all over it- He probably created an alt-account just to start this.


    No, I did not start this thread.


    Of course you didn't......... icon_wink.gif


    Honestly, I didn't whether you think so or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:52 PM GMT
    hotnrough saidAs bi man im all for gay rights, with that said it strongly believe that gay marriage should remain illegal. In my opinion marriage is governed by the church and the state should have no say in it what so ever. Marriage, until quite recently, was controlled by the church; since its inception marriage has been the union of a man and a women in a religious ceremony. I hate the fact that states( gov'ts) has managed to make a profit off marriages and that something that once had religious connotation is now controlled by the state. Gay couples in my eyes are entitled to civil unions because they don't carry a religious value; however according to most if not all religions homosexuality is a sin, thus the reason for not condoning gay marriages. Religion and state must be separated and marriage is clearly a religious issue. I would like point out that i am not a very religious man, however i do respect the right of religions to exist and maintain sovereignty over religious aspects.
    I don't want to offend anybody i simply want to know ur views on this topic, if you dont agree with what i say i dont care it's my right to have an opinion and will not be ashamed or apologize for my beliefs.


    If it's a church-mandated function, then why are athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, wiccans, Jews and even people in PRISON allowed to marry?

    A gay Christian can't marry his partner but a man who's raped kids in some low-security state-run prison can?

    In short, your argument, like EVERYONE ELSE before you, is so contradictory it's mind-boggling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 6:52 PM GMT
    McGay said
    G_Force said
    McGay saidThen, should hetero couples be recognized by the gov't as civilly unionized or married? If it's married, then all couples seeking that designation should be granted as much and all the benefits given to one form of couple should be given to the other. Equivalency is not equality. What I have with my partner of 22 years is far more "sacred" than what most straight married couples have and you can take that to the bank, the altar or the burning ring of fire.



    I believe there should be 2 separate insitutions--one for gays and 1 for str8's, with each having the same legal rights by the governement.


    I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm firmly convinced, that you are a moron.
    You can believe anything you want. It doesn't make it true.
  • Rowing_Ant

    Posts: 1504

    Jan 19, 2010 6:53 PM GMT
    Marriage is based upon Roman Law. Marriage is a legal, civil, act. It was about the transfer of property - that of a daughter to another man.

    Only in the last 200 to 150 years has marriage been about love and romance, per se.

    Even in other cultures, marriage is about honour, the joining of families and transfer of property - e.g. arrange marriages.

    In Britain, ordained ministers were NOT able to solemnize marriage until the early 19th century. They could perform the "God" bit but they could not make it legal. Weddings took place outside a church where the whole community could see and in the presence of the Town Clerk and the Lord of the Manor. The couple then went into the church to take communion together.

    It was only around 1890 that non-conformist ministers were allowed to perform marriage and solmenize then. They had to be performed by the Parish Priest and in the presence of a Civil person. Furthermore, churches and their ministers had to be licenced so that the legal ceremony of a marriage could take place there.

    I am at a loss to see why people get so hot under the collar about marriage. For thousands of years it was a legal act. And it still is. IF, however, you believe that marriage is a "sacrement" of the Church then that is a differant matter, of course.

    Furthermore, the argument that marriage is "sanctified" by the bible has no weight because the form of marriage now is differant to as it was in 1st century CE Judea and, also, culturally we are not living in 1st Century CE Judea. All things change and evolve. They have to or they stagnate or regress.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 7:00 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Rowing_Ant said[/cite]Marriage is based upon Roman Law. Marriage is a legal, civil, act. It was about the transfer of property - that of a daughter to another man.

    Only in the last 200 to 150 years has marriage been about love and romance, per se.

    Even in other cultures, marriage is about honour, the joining of families and transfer of property - e.g. arrange marriages.

    In Britain, ordained ministers were NOT able to solemnize marriage until the early 19th century. They could perform the "God" bit but they could not make it legal. Weddings took place outside a church where the whole community could see and in the presence of the Town Clerk and the Lord of the Manor. The couple then went into the church to take communion together.

    It was only around 1890 that non-conformist ministers were allowed to perform marriage and solmenize then. They had to be performed by the Parish Priest and in the presence of a Civil person. Furthermore, churches and their ministers had to be licenced so that the legal ceremony of a marriage could take place there.

    I am at a loss to see why people get so hot under the collar about marriage. For thousands of years it was a legal act. And it still is. IF, however, you believe that marriage is a "sacrement" of the Church then that is a differant matter, of course.

    Furthermore, the argument that marriage is "sanctified" by the bible has no weight because the form of marriage now is differant to as it was in 1st century CE Judea and, also, culturally we are not living in 1st Century CE Judea. All things change and evolve. They have to or they stagnate or regress.

    You are never going to get the church to change the definition of marriage. And the state can not force the church to change its definition of marriage. It can create a new institution, though, which has the same legal rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 7:03 PM GMT
    Rowing_Ant saidMarriage is based upon Roman Law. Marriage is a legal, civil, act. It was about the transfer of property - that of a daughter to another man.

    Only in the last 200 to 150 years has marriage been about love and romance, per se.

    Even in other cultures, marriage is about honour, the joining of families and transfer of property - e.g. arrange marriages.

    In Britain, ordained ministers were NOT able to solemnize marriage until the early 19th century. They could perform the "God" bit but they could not make it legal. Weddings took place outside a church where the whole community could see and in the presence of the Town Clerk and the Lord of the Manor. The couple then went into the church to take communion together.

    It was only around 1890 that non-conformist ministers were allowed to perform marriage and solmenize then. They had to be performed by the Parish Priest and in the presence of a Civil person. Furthermore, churches and their ministers had to be licenced so that the legal ceremony of a marriage could take place there.

    I am at a loss to see why people get so hot under the collar about marriage. For thousands of years it was a legal act. And it still is. IF, however, you believe that marriage is a "sacrement" of the Church then that is a differant matter, of course.

    Furthermore, the argument that marriage is "sanctified" by the bible has no weight because the form of marriage now is differant to as it was in 1st century CE Judea and, also, culturally we are not living in 1st Century CE Judea. All things change and evolve. They have to or they stagnate or regress.



    As far as I know, only the Roman Catholic Church teaches marriage as a "sacrament." Well, I think Mormons do, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2010 7:03 PM GMT
    hotnrough saidAs bi man im all for gay rights, with that said it strongly believe that gay marriage should remain illegal. In my opinion marriage is governed by the church and the state should have no say in it what so ever. Marriage, until quite recently, was controlled by the church; since its inception marriage has been the union of a man and a women in a religious ceremony. I hate the fact that states( gov'ts) has managed to make a profit off marriages and that something that once had religious connotation is now controlled by the state. Gay couples in my eyes are entitled to civil unions because they don't carry a religious value; however according to most if not all religions homosexuality is a sin, thus the reason for not condoning gay marriages. Religion and state must be separated and marriage is clearly a religious issue. I would like point out that i am not a very religious man, however i do respect the right of religions to exist and maintain sovereignty over religious aspects.
    I don't want to offend anybody i simply want to know ur views on this topic, if you dont agree with what i say i dont care it's my right to have an opinion and will not be ashamed or apologize for my beliefs.
    OK, well first I thought your views were interesting but fair, then I read the last line and your cockiness is overwhelming...geez. Also, marriage is NO LONGER a religious sacrament only. The fact that you have to go to the STATE and get a MARRIAGE license is clear evidence that the sacramental portion of marriage is entirely different than that of the what the state requires. If your 'opinion' is to have any validity then you'll have to explain how the church puts up with all those heterosexuals who married within the church but never attend worship or, better yet, all those heterosexuals married in the neon chapels of Las Vegas or by Justice of the Peace (a political, not religious position) with no emphasis on the religious (sacramental) part of marriage. As for when the state took over the legality of marriage is not important, however the signing of a marriage certificate by a minister was a privilege afforded to them by the STATE to reduce the volume on state employees (whatever position legally is responsible in each state). Legalizing marriage has NO effect what so ever on the religious side of marriage. As a sacrament, those who attend or desire to have their vows blessed within the church are free to do so but even today, AS THINGS ARE NOW, NO heterosexual can go into the church and be married WITHOUT a marriage license from the STATE. NO, it is NOT a religious thing! We do NOT live in a theocracy. The implications of being married, in the eyes of the government, are the availability of having certain rights granted by the state (NOT THE CHURCH) and as it stands now, those are afforded to a single group of individuals making the 'other' group, a distinctively discriminated class of people who's equal rights are being denied by the state.

    Oh and "if you dont agree with what i say i dont care it's my right to have an opinion and will not be ashamed or apologize for my beliefs".