I say yae. Love is the same no matter who you are, so why try to squash it?

I don't really think love is the problem. The church of course teaches that God is Love, Mercy, etc. It is all a part of honor thy mother and thy father, and to love your neighbour. The problem is how we interpret love with other people. The basic concept of love is the same, but you wouldn't marry your entire family. Where marriage is concerned it takes love a step or two further.

However, there are two main callings in life. One is to the church the other is family. It's a basic necesity to propogate the human race. If those who do not take the vow of chastity enter into homosexual marriages then the race will die out. The alternative to that is test tube babies, sperm donations, etc. None of which is natural. In most cases unnatural unions tend to be looked down upon by religions. Unnatural = not right, and therefore, not holy. No brainer, right? That's the more practical reason against the fundamental arguments.

A more sophisticated version is the belief of spiritual union and absolutes. If you go outside of the union it's adultery. It's a basic nono in the Ten Commandments. There's never been an if, and, or but, just a resounding No. Even on a personal, one case level, in order to have a child they'd have to go outside of their family for this child. Adopting is a grey point, but certainly surrogate parents and such could be considered a form of adultery.

I know it's all a little out there, but we're dealing with a religious principle, and not just a personal freedom.

As I said before, I see these things from different angles, and respect that there are different reasons to be on both sides of the argument. It's like the question: If there's a tree in the middle of the woods and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, of course it does. General knowledge dictates to us that it does. So does the fact that people who do not follow a particular belief cannot do things in accordance with those who believe. If it is wrong to be gay in Christianity, than it is. Form a new sect. It's why we have so many as it is.

It's like trying to put a quota on racial minorities on private organizations. It sounds nice, but honestly....inserting an African American into the KKK isn't wise.

Again, it's similar here. You are trying to force people to go against their fundamental beliefs in order to allow something they won't allow. We can't force them to accept it anymore than they should force you to stop doing/ loving/ being what you want.

I am very pro gay marriage. The only argument against it is a religious one, and we are not a country that forces people to follow the rules set forth by any 1 religion for the most part. In fact, this is the only issue that I can think of that does force others to obey a certain religions rules weather they want to or not.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

I agree. "Marriage" in the term, is a religious affair. It always has been for the most part, since the marriage had to be sanctioned by the church.

You're confusing "marriage" with "wedding." The wedding is the religious part, not the marriage.

Originally Posted by Keyori

You're confusing "marriage" with "wedding." The wedding is the religious part, not the marriage.

:nodnod: Indeed.

How many cultures both now and in history weren't Christian? How many of those did not get married? I can name a bunch of people that don't worship Jehovah, but I can't think of a single one that didn't have marriage.

I my self am pro gay marriage. We have no right to deny the right to marry. If church doses not go along with the marriage. They should still be able to get a marriage license.

Originally Posted by riniblue

I my self am pro gay marriage. We have no right to deny the right to marry. If church doses not go along with the marriage. They should still be able to get a marriage license.

No right to deny the marriage to who exactly? Will you replace homosexual with child? Will you replace homosexual with necrophiliac? Where do the rights of marriage begin and end and why?

As if it wasn't already obvious enough already, California lawmakers have introduced a bill protecting the right of clergy to refuse to marry gays.

I think it's a waste of time since the clergy already have this right, but if it helps more gay Californians get married later on, then I suppose I'm not against the bill.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

No right to deny the marriage to who exactly? Will you replace homosexual with child? Will you replace homosexual with necrophiliac? Where do the rights of marriage begin and end and why?

Consent, Tutela. A grown adult can consent; a child cannot. And a corpse not only cannot consent, but is generally treated by the law as the property of either the surviving relatives or the state, meaning they can control what is and is not done with it.

It's generally assumed that we are referring to people who can consent and have done so in discussions like this. After all, you haven't accused people of supporting forced marriages because they mention the age but don't specifically mention whether or not the parties agree to the marriage.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Consent, Tutela. A grown adult can consent; a child cannot. And a corpse not only cannot consent, but is generally treated by the law as the property of either the surviving relatives or the state, meaning they can control what is and is not done with it.

It's generally assumed that we are referring to people who can consent and have done so in discussions like this. After all, you haven't accused people of supporting forced marriages because they mention the age but don't specifically mention whether or not the parties agree to the marriage.

Consent, something that takes away the rights of others. Children cannot consent because they are not considered as being of use to society. So they have no rights and they cannot consent. Their parents can consent for them though since children are just pieces of property. Also, when someone dies, they become "owned"? So, while a human is living it owns itself, but when it dies it gives up that ownership to other humans that are living? Besides all this banter about technicalities....

What about asexual people who have no desire to be with either sex, yet cannot gain the rights married couples have just because they choose not to marry.

Originally Posted by Nissa

:nodnod: Indeed.

How many cultures both now and in history weren't Christian? How many of those did not get married? I can name a bunch of people that don't worship Jehovah, but I can't think of a single one that didn't have marriage.

First off, marriage the word has several meanings. The pertinent ones consist of religious and non-religious connotations. Yes, I was discussing the religious aspect. You could also call those weddings since they are synonomous. This is the problem. There's not enough distinction between the legal vs. the religious act. Since the religious aspect is disapproving, it makes controversy for the entirety.

I am all for separation of church and state. Overall, it's a must. I just think the separation in this case needs to be more distinct so that homosexuals may have all the legality of a married couple without the status as such. Call it a "union." Call it something else, change the process enough so that it can stand on it's own without being a politically corrected duplicate. That's the only way I see to reasonably appease both parties.

And thirdly, I can name a fair enough of people that don't call the Christian God their own, but they still have a religious belief. Their marriage rights are still religious to them. Granted, some of those religions may accept a homosexual union, and in that faith will have no problems. I don't disregard any of those marriages as being any less real. And if there was an official rite to be had that exists beyond the religious, personally I'd still regard it with the same respect as the religious.

What I don't understand is how you can try and force a group of people to not only accept but to partipate in something they believe is morally wrong.

P.S. Redundant as it might be, I'm glad to see that there's a law reasserting the Clergy's right to substain from performing these marriages. <3

However, just as the law has no right to dictate religious belief, religious belief should not dictate law. If a couple is married legally, it should remain legal in all states despite the church's stand on it. They can deem it unholy all they want, but the lawfulness remains.

Sarcasm always reigns supreme, Kah :boogie:

I vote yes for gay marriage. Equal rights all the way!

Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? Gays are people too, they love, they have the same emotions that hederosexuals do as well. They should have the same rights. People don't realize that. It really annoys me, dumb homophobes.

I say let the people have a break already. they have enough things on their plates.
just let them be with whomever they want to be with.
seperation of church and state, is not really true. I mean who votes for the senator with strong religious values? People with the same religious values, that's who.
so if they don't want same-sex marriage, then they are going to elect someone who doesn't want it either.
so, even though they should ( and I bet those weddings would be killer to go to!) I don't think that the United states government, and many like it, are not going to change the policy on same sex marriage for a while yet.

pity though.

Originally Posted by Sinziana

Again, it's similar here. You are trying to force people to go against their fundamental beliefs in order to allow something they won't allow. We can't force them to accept it anymore than they should force you to stop doing/ loving/ being what you want.

No one's asking anyone to accept anything. People can be against homosexual marriage just like they can be against interracial marriage, but that doesn't mean that they have the right to keep people from doing it.

I don't think people who oppose gay marriage are homophobes, they could just not approve of it. I support interracial marriage even thought I don't support same sex marriage.

Originally Posted by LenGe

I don't think people who oppose gay marriage are homophobes, they could just not approve of it. I support interracial marriage even thought I don't support same sex marriage.

The point: you missed it.

Originally Posted by Kris

The point: you missed it.

*Laughs*

Anyway, I can say neither yes nor no to gay marriage.

If I were to follow the little I know about the Christian and Catholic religion I would say that it is wrong because of the biased teachings of the priests, but do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying no to gay marriage. I'm just explaining why I am reserved.

I have, however been persuaded by some of the other arguments talking about the separation needed between church and state.

IF church and state are separated properly and no religion is forced to bend down to laws I will say, "YES, more power to all gays wishing to marry their significant others," because (truth be told) all people deserve the benefits of marriage.

So, in the end, I say yes to gay marriage so long as it is not insinuated with the religious ceremony. I don't think that anyone's rights should be suppressed, here.

Those people who continue to argue against gay marriage after this separation between church and state has finally been made are most certainly homophobes.

Also, I do notice the flaw in my argument where one considers that some gays may be religious and thus would want the Christian ceremony, but I do not know what to propose to fix this. There is no way to make everybody happy.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

*Laughs*

Anyway, I can say neither yes nor no to gay marriage.

If I were to follow the little I know about the Christian and Catholic religion I would say that it is wrong because of the biased teachings of the priests, but do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying no to gay marriage. I'm just explaining why I am reserved.

I have, however been persuaded by some of the other arguments talking about the separation needed between church and state.

IF church and state are separated properly and no religion is forced to bend down to laws I will say, "YES, more power to all gays wishing to marry their significant others," because (truth be told) all people deserve the benefits of marriage.

So, in the end, I say yes to gay marriage so long as it is not insinuated with the religious ceremony. I don't think that anyone's rights should be suppressed, here.

Those people who continue to argue against gay marriage after this separation between church and state has finally been made are most certainly homophobes.

Also, I do notice the flaw in my argument where one considers that some gays may be religious and thus would want the Christian ceremony, but I do not know what to propose to fix this. There is no way to make everybody happy.

There are many pro-gay churches which already preform the ceremony, but the couples get no legal benefits. However, this debate is not over the religious form of marriage, as marriages in churches will be unaffected by any laws about this. They can continue to reject gay marriage if they wish, or they can continue providing same-sex services (the difference being that the state will then recognize them).

I feel that gays should be able to marry! I personally am Gay myself and I don't see why I can't marry.

For all of those people that say that gay marriage is wrong I have a few questions....

1. What are we hurting (Besides your feelings)??

2. Why is it so bad (Mind you religious views are pathetic)??

Reminder that all answers have to have a valid reason. Reasons like "because I think so" or "Because god said it was wrong", are no where near valid responses!!!

I personally hate when people say that I can't marry someone that I clearly have fallen in love with all because that guy has the same genital parts as me. For heaven's sakes they are just silly parts, Lol... :D

Gay's should have as much as a right to be together than straight people. All this talk is pretty much about gay's getting their RIGHTS. I mean, have we not had a bunch of other issues with rights before??? Such as (off the top of my head), woman wanting to vote, slaves wanting rights and wanting to be free, races have clashed before about their rights. Just give them the rights that they want, so we can get this over with. Gay people shouldn't matter what other people think, and those people shouldn't make such a huge deal about them getting married. I mean, you people may say, "Well that's just wrong, I don't like it". Well... there are going to be a LOT of things that people disagree with, and don't like. Y'all just need to get over yourselves, and let them be who they are! We are all living people after all, all of which have different personalities. Just accept people for who they are. Sure you may not like it, but is it really logically to make this all a huge issue??? Seriously.

I don't think gay marriage is that big of a deal. there's more important things. i have lot's of gay friends who don't want to get married. then again, we're all under 21.

There's always something "more important," but since it's such an easy fix, there's no excuse for not taking care of it now.

Marriage isn't just about a female and a male getting together and having sex for the rest of the life to create offsprings.

Marriage is about a bond between two human beings. Between Male - Female or Female - Female or Guy - Guy. It's about friendship, love, passion.

It's a bond between to beings who want to spend the rest of their lives together.

I feel if two people want to be married, why not. It's not my life. If two people are happy together, who am I to stop them? I am just another human trying to be happy. I rather two people be happy together. Than miserable because society can not accept outsiders.

This whole system is built to keep the "Norms". That anyone who does not follow the guidelines of being normal they are automatically an outcast.

I think that gays have every right to marry as heterosexuals. I am a bisexual female myself, and I've had one girlfriend whom I would've loved to marry. Of course, there's not too much of a debate where I live, as Canada does allow marriages between homosexual couples.
I don't see why this is such a debate and why people make a big deal out of it. It does not hurt any one if gays are allowed to marry. People don't need to worry about that which does not concern them. If gay people want to get married, then let them and don't worry about their affairs.