Is Gay marriage necessary today or immoral?

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by burgertown

I dont think people that "choose" the homosexual lifestyle should be allowed to marry or honestly are allowed to marry because according to my beliefs and those of other christians God sees marriage as between a man and woman. Seperation of church and state is still in effect so the gov. couldnt this decision. Anyway, we have no right to change the bible and any preachers/pastors who are marrying these people are wrong. Thats just my thoughts though. . .

I'm not sure that I exactly understand your point, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding it. However, if laws were changed to allow gay marriage, no religious leader would be required to perform such a marriage. None.
Likewise, religions shouldn't be allowed to dictate which couples the state grants marriages to.

[shinerbock]

In an ideal world, the government would have never gotten in the marriage business.

[Drolefille]

Yeah, but unfortunately it stretchs back to when the government was either governed by the religion or was strongly influenced by it (As in don't do anything until the high priest says ok). And it just kinda stuck around.

[Infamous12]

I was just discussing this issue with my Sands the other day as we looked over the sample election ballot.....

Homosexuality is a sin. This is true. However, I have a problem with the emphasis some people (Christians and nons alike) put on this sin...it's no different than lying...stealing..cheating, etc. (I went to a statewide church convention in Ohio where the ministers literally preached that 'homosexuality was the ultimate sin'...I thought blasphemy and denying Christ as our Lord and Saviour was the 'ultimate sin') As far as whether I personally feel that it should be allowed by the government, I say 'Sure, why not.' If that's how two people choose to live their lives, and do so peacefully - then I'm all for it. I honestly feel that the time and effort some states' governments are putting in to 'ban gay marriage' is ridiculous. There are so many more pertinent education, racial, and economic issues that we should be focused on, but yet in practically every election we must try and refine how two mature, consenting adults define their relationship.

[neosoul]

I DO NOT b-live in marriage, gay or otherwise... someone has yet to explain to me the benefits of such a union, however comma if two law abiding citizens wish to do so, be them SGL (same gender loving) or het, Jah bless the union...

[dzdst796]

IMO there are other pressing issues facing us. As far as gay unions/marriages what is the big damn deal? Who and how people choose to love is nobody's business. I know people that have had a more successful same sex relationship than people I know who have a heterosexual relationship. I do feel that if two people share their lives together that they should be allowed to share in the same benefits whether or not they are a homosexual couple or heterosexual.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by dzdst796

IMO there are other pressing issues facing us. As far as gay unions/marriages what is the big damn deal? Who and how people choose to love is nobody's business. I know people that have had a more successful same sex relationship than people I know who have a heterosexual relationship. I do feel that if two people share their lives together that they should be allowed to share in the same benefits whether or not they are a homosexual couple or heterosexual.

Thank you, and good night!

[mulattogyrl]

Originally Posted by dzdst796

IMO there are other pressing issues facing us. As far as gay unions/marriages what is the big damn deal? Who and how people choose to love is nobody's business. I know people that have had a more successful same sex relationship than people I know who have a heterosexual relationship. I do feel that if two people share their lives together that they should be allowed to share in the same benefits whether or not they are a homosexual couple or heterosexual.

that's my prophyte dammit

[PerroLoco]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Thank you, and good night!

Why so?

Its been proven and voted on by the general populace in 38 of 50 states that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, with it only failing in one state.

No one is telling people that they can't love each other or have a relationship. Why is "gay marriage" a pressing issue? The public is tired of special interests forcing agendas down their throats. These items are of importance as a ballot measure because no state wants to be forced to recognize a statute in Massachussetts that the majority of the individuals in that state disagrees with.

Its not about denying anyone their rights or happiness. For many Americans, "marriage" is a sacrament, not just a legal contract binding a couple of any sex to certain fiduciary and legal obligations. "Holy Matrimony" is ordained by God and is consecrated in His presence. Since God Himself calls homosexuality an "abomination", it is not something that can be blessed, joined by him, or considered Holy. Therefore, same sex unions cannot be considered "marriage".

However, since America is a constitutional republic, all citizens have the right to equal protection and fair treatment and therefore gay/lesbian couples should have all rights granted to those in a traditional marriage by way of Civil Unions, which addresses the needs of the legal constructs of marriage.

[dzdst796]

OK. I think the stressing about what to call it "Marriage or Civil Union" is ridiculous. As long as it is a union that is considered valid and that the benefits can be shared between both people, regardless of gender that is the important factor in all of this.

Heterosexuals should not be offended by it being called a "Marriage" and homosexuals need to be glad that they will be able to reap the benefits of their union being legal.

And lets not start the conversation about "God" and how He feels about it. God feels a certain way about everything and we as people don't heed to it so this issue shouldn't be held to a higher standard than anything else.

[burgertown]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I'm not sure that I exactly understand your point, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding it. However, if laws were changed to allow gay marriage, no religious leader would be required to perform such a marriage. None.
Likewise, religions shouldn't be allowed to dictate which couples the state grants marriages to.

I meant it as that (in my view) they could not perform a marriage ceremony because they do not have the right things to make a marriage, (i.e. if i wanted to bake a cake and I had two ovens but no food i'd be S.O.L. )

[PerroLoco]

Originally Posted by dzdst796

OK. I think the stressing about what to call it "Marriage or Civil Union" is ridiculous. As long as it is a union that is considered valid and that the benefits can be shared between both people, regardless of gender that is the important factor in all of this.

Heterosexuals should not be offended by it being called a "Marriage" and homosexuals need to be glad that they will be able to reap the benefits of their union being legal.

And lets not start the conversation about "God" and how He feels about it. God feels a certain way about everything and we as people don't heed to it so this issue shouldn't be held to a higher standard than anything else.

Its "ridiculous" only if you have no benchmarks. If your standards for marriage mean a "husband and wife", then what its call is meaningful. The problem with secular humanism is its absence of standands and moral equivalency which leads to a watering down and lack of respect for ideals that require man to rise to a higher level rather than sinking to the lowest common denominator which you advocate with your "who cares" position. That attitude and its subsequent lifestyle choices are the root of many of the pathologies which ails our communities and is the basis for our apathetic and apologetic stance on sources of behavior which destroys families.

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by PerroLoco

Its "ridiculous" only if you have no benchmarks. If your standards for marriage mean a "husband and wife", then what its call is meaningful. The problem with secular humanism is its absence of standands and moral equivalency which leads to a watering down and lack of respect for ideals that require man to rise to a higher level rather than sinking to the lowest common denominator which you advocate with your "who cares" position. That attitude and its subsequent lifestyle choices are the root of many of the pathologies which ails our communities and is the basis for our apathetic and apologetic stance on sources of behavior which destroys families.

[BrooklynCutie]

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7

What makes your sins any better than anyone else you claim to have sinned?

For those against gay marriages, you should worry about your own relationship with God and not anyone elses.

[shinerbock]

Brooklyn, so, because we've sinned, we should open up the door for the government to legitimize other people's sin? Nobody is saying "hey, you're a sinner, we're not." However, the Bible doesn't say to condone other people's sin either.

On the main note, screw it, just let them have civil unions. A lot of people in this country care about the term marriage and what it symbolizes. Let them keep that, and give gay people the unions they want. Frankly i just want the issue to end.