Gay Marriage

[Dennisch]

You keep saying that. I still don't get why you are so adamant about it having to be that way.

Because marriage is a Christian word.

 

[Pako]

Just holding on to what I value. Marriage, the sacred bond between a man and a woman, is one of those values that I feel is worth not letting go of. Gay couples are not entitled to marriage even though they feel they should be. The feeling of entitlement doesn't secure entitlement.

 

[TheCracker]

But who says that marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman?

 

[Pako]

It's all good and don't think I can contribute any more to this thread. I guess I'm just a horrible monster and apparently should just get a swastika tattooed on my forehead.

 

[Dennisch]

It's all good and don't think I can contribute any more to this thread. I guess I'm just a horrible monster and apparently should just get a swastika tattooed on my forehead.

No, but you need to realize that there is a world beyond Christianity, which happens to have the same words.

Edit.
About the Church marriage and gays. I fully understand that the church doesn't want them get married in church, but when a marriage is not in the house of God, Christians have nothing to say.

 

[Danoff]

Just holding on to what I value. Marriage, the sacred bond between a man and a woman, is one of those values that I feel is worth not letting go of. Gay couples are not entitled to marriage even though they feel they should be. The feeling of entitlement doesn't secure entitlement.

I'm much more interested in the provisions of the constitution that prescribe equal protection of law than I am about some notion of heterosexual relationships being special. The constitution is what entitles them to it, not a feeling.

 

[Exorcet]

the sacred bond between a man and a woman, is one of those values that I feel is worth not letting go of.

That's Christian marriage. I don't think gay couples are asking for that specifically. Churches can define their sacraments as they wish, this isn't a religious debate.

 

[FoolKiller]

Just holding on to what I value. Marriage, the sacred bond between a man and a woman, is one of those values that I feel is worth not letting go of. Gay couples are not entitled to marriage even though they feel they should be. The feeling of entitlement doesn't secure entitlement.

But how does that value, that bond in your marriage get let go of or lost? If you value your marriage more than their's then fine. I value mine far more than anyone's. Divorce breaks that sacred bond. Because I feel that bond is too great to let go of it would require something huge to cause me to file for divorce. Unless my daughter is in danger I will attempt to save my marriage.

None of that changes if a gay couple has all the legal access we do. But that is because I value marriage and the sacred bond I have with my wife above how any bureaucrat defines it. My marriage is not about rights or finances or even children. The nature of a lifelong commitment means we need to consider those things but they were not on my mind when I proposed or got married. My marriage has nothing to do with the law. For that reason I do not believe government should tell anyone who they can and cannot marry. When you give them that power they can find any reason they want to say that you can't be married to your spouse.

It's all good and don't think I can contribute any more to this thread. I guess I'm just a horrible monster and apparently should just get a swastika tattooed on my forehead.

No one thinks that. At least I don't. I was raised in a conservative religious home. I understand you are not opposed to gay marriage from some form of hate. But when it comes to law my faith is never harmed just by allowing people to perform an act I don't approve of. We are a nation of mixed cultures. My values are my values, but I cannot ask that others live by them.

 

[Brett]

Just holding on to what I value. Marriage, the sacred bond between a man and a woman, is one of those values that I feel is worth not letting go of. Gay couples are not entitled to marriage even though they feel they should be. The feeling of entitlement doesn't secure entitlement.

What FoolKiller said.

 

[Prosthetic]

Why does the church has power over peoples social decisions. I don't care what the church thinks, if I want to marry a man I should be able to marry a man.

 

[TheCracker]

It's all good and don't think I can contribute any more to this thread. I guess I'm just a horrible monster and apparently should just get a swastika tattooed on my forehead.

Pix or it didn't happen

 

[Dennisch]

Bad Cereal! Bad!

 

[Quackjack]

Because bible-thumpers think they control america... which they do to an extent

 

[hogger129]

As a Catholic, I do not view gay marriage as "marriage," since marriage is between a man and a woman.

Pako
Like I said earlier, if a gay couple want's Civil Union rights so they can take advantage of all the things that married couples do, sure.....I support that, but don't call it marriage, because it is not.

+1

 

[Famine]

As a Catholic, I do not view gay marriage as "marriage," since marriage is between a man and a woman.

Rational analysis yields solid, objective reasons for limiting marriage to one man and one woman-reasons anyone can agree with on purely secular grounds.

Good of them to supply the results of this rational analysis and their solid, objective reasons.

 

[Zenith]

As a Catholic, I do not view gay marriage as "marriage," since marriage is between a man and a woman.

+1

Depends who you ask.

Famine in 3..2..

Edit: tree'd

Until we all find a way to get around this word, gay couples are going to continue to be deprived of their rights.

 

[Danoff]

As a Catholic, I do not view gay marriage as "marriage," since marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's fine... what are your views on whether it should be legally recognized?

 

[hogger129]

That's fine... what are your views on whether it should be legally recognized?

Maybe a better idea would be to grant civil unions the same legal protections that marriages have under the law. As much as I disagree with the practice, I don't really care if gay marriage is legal. I just don't view it as marriage.

 

[Ven0m]

As a Catholic, I do not view gay marriage as "marriage," since marriage is between a man and a woman.

+1

This. Don't hate gay people but I view it as a man and a woman institution.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe a better idea would be to grant civil unions the same legal protections that marriages have under the law. As much as I disagree with the practice, I don't really care if gay marriage is legal. I just don't view it as marriage.

That's fine as long as you're for legal recognition. You don't have to accept it, but you do have to tolerate it.

 

[Quackjack]

As a Catholic, I do not view gay marriage as "marriage," since marriage is between a man and a woman.



+1

You have a religon. Great. Leave it at church, this is a republic. Thank you have a nice day.

That's fine as long as you're for legal recognition. You don't have to accept it, but you do have to tolerate it.

+1

 

[hogger129]

You have a religon. Great. Leave it at church, this is a republic.

Totally agree.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment, US Constitution

Now, doesn't "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" essentially mean that the government has no authority to sanction marriage? At least that's the libertarian stance, which I agree with. It should remain a religious status, nothing more.

By saying that I have to respect marriage between anything but one man and one woman, wouldn't that violate my right to free exercise of religion?

Again, I have to take the libertarian stance and say that government shouldn't be involved in defining religious institutions such as marriage.

I'm surprised libertarians haven't won the Presidency yet since the overwhelming majority of people I have met in my life actually hold political leanings closer to those of the Libertarian Party than anything else. Maybe it's just that they think they can't make a difference by voting their conscience.

But like I said, I could care less what they call a civil union, or a marriage, or whatever they wanna call it. None of my business. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, they shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on me.

 

[Exorcet]

Now, doesn't "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" essentially mean that the government has no authority to sanction marriage? At least that's the libertarian stance, which I agree with. It should remain a religious status, nothing more.

Only marriage isn't religious.

By saying that I have to respect marriage between anything but one man and one woman, wouldn't that violate my right to free exercise of religion?

No. You have to respect that the Jewish faith only thinks that Jesus is special, not lord of the universe special.

Again, I have to take the libertarian stance and say that government shouldn't be involved in defining religious institutions such as marriage.

Marriage isn't a religious thing.

 

[Quackjack]

Totally agree.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment, US Constitution

Now, doesn't "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" essentially mean that the government has no authority to sanction marriage? At least that's the libertarian stance, which I agree with. It should remain a religious status, nothing more.

By saying that I have to respect marriage between anything but one man and one woman, wouldn't that violate my right to free exercise of religion?

Again, I have to take the libertarian stance and say that government shouldn't be involved in defining religious institutions such as marriage.

I'm surprised libertarians haven't won the Presidency yet since the overwhelming majority of people I have met in my life actually hold political leanings closer to those of the Libertarian Party than anything else. Maybe it's just that they think they can't make a difference by voting their conscience.

But like I said, I could care less what they call a civil union, or a marriage, or whatever they wanna call it. None of my business. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, they shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on me.

Marriage is not religous. If it were, my dad and mom wouldn't be married (Ones Atheist, other's Deist).

Simple. Yes, the church does not have to marry them, but they can marry irreligously.

Also,

Looks like goverment sponser of religon, no?

 

[hogger129]

Marriage is not religous. If it were, my dad and mom wouldn't be married (Ones Atheist, other's Deist).

Simple. Yes, the church does not have to marry them, but they can marry irreligously.

Also,

Looks like goverment sponser of religon, no?

Well then I guess we must agree to disagree because to me, marriage is religious.

The government a sponsor of religion? Wouldn't it be safe to say this country was founded by Christians? "God-given" rights? If you don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster in the sky aka God, does that also mean you do not believe in "God-given" rights as well?

Like I said, I am all for giving gay couples equal rights. I am not in favor of calling it marriage.

 

[Exorcet]

Well then I guess we must agree to disagree because to me, marriage is religious.

It's not an opinion though. Religions have marriages, but so do states.

The government a sponsor of religion? Wouldn't it be safe to say this country was founded by Christians? "God-given" rights? If you don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, does that mean you have no "God-given" rights as well?

They still signed for separation of church and state.

The rights exist regardless of religious belief.

 

[Quackjack]

Well then I guess we must agree to disagree because to me, marriage is religious.

The government a sponsor of religion? Wouldn't it be safe to say this country was founded by Christians? "God-given" rights? If you don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, does that mean you have no "God-given" rights as well?

Like I said, I am all for giving gay couples equal rights. I am not in favor of calling it marriage.

Exactly. To you. Atheist can marry, so can agnostics or even satanist. So yes, it is not religous.

And no, many of the founding-fathers were deist. Besides, they themselves said there religon was irrelavant. This is not a christian theocracy, and if the day comes the religon has to do with the state I will pack my bags and more to Europe.

 

[hogger129]

It's not an opinion though. Religions have marriages, but so do states.


They still signed for separation of church and state.

The rights exist regardless of religious belief.

Show me where this "separation of church and state" is because all I can seem to find with regards to that is what's written in the text of the First Amendment.

Rights exist regardless of religious belief?

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." -US Declaration of Independence

=====================================================

And no, many of the founding-fathers were deist. Besides, they themselves said there religon was irrelavant. This is not a christian theocracy, and if the day comes the religon has to do with the state I will pack my bags and more to Europe.

Well define "deist," because people seem to have created this myth that they didn't believe in God. They simply didn't want a centralized religious institution taking over the country the way the Anglican Church did in England. That is why they wanted religious freedom. Nobody said this was a Christian theocracy, but one cannot deny that this country was founded by Christians who believed that rights were "God-given" and unalienable. My point was to pose the question that if you do not believe in a Creator, does that also mean you do not believe in certain, unalienable rights endowed by that Creator? That is essentially what is meant by "natural rights" that the Founding Fathers talk about.



I'll say again, I am all for gay couples getting equal rights. They are Americans too. I am not in favor of calling it marriage.

 

[Quackjack]

Show me where this "separation of church and state" is because all I can seem to find with regards to that is what's written in the text of the First Amendment.

Rights exist regardless of religious belief?

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." -US Declaration of Independence

Wait wait wait hold on one second. Are you saying I have no rights?

 

[hogger129]

Wait wait wait hold on one second. Are you saying I have no rights?

Please stop taking me out of context and read the rest of my post. I simply posed a hypothetical question. Thanks.