Is Gay marriage necessary today or immoral?

burgertown · #1 10-28-2006, 06:12 AM

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. . .

Drolefille · #2 10-29-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

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. . .

A few small points, just for you to think about.
1) did you "choose" to like members of the opposite sex
2)However God views marriage, we're not discussing religious marriage, we're discussing civil marriage. They're seperate, ala that church and state thing.
3) Such a decision thus, does not affect the Bible (there's no Adam and Steve) because it doesn't affect what church's do.
4) If every couple (gay or straight) went to the state to get their civil union certificate and to the church to get married would you feel differently about allowing gay couples to get civil unions?

shinerbock · #3 10-29-2006, 07:12 PM

Off topic, but on the choose/birth debate, just because you may have certain tendencies or feelings, doesn't mean its automatically ok to partake in them. I'm sure pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles...Granted, I'm not really comparing gays to pedophiles, but simply because it may not be a choice, doesn't automatically qualify it as something that should be accepted.

Drolefille · #4 10-30-2006, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Off topic, but on the choose/birth debate, just because you may have certain tendencies or feelings, doesn't mean its automatically ok to partake in them. I'm sure pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles...Granted, I'm not really comparing gays to pedophiles, but simply because it may not be a choice, doesn't automatically qualify it as something that should be accepted.

I see what you're saying, but I really don't have a problem with two consenting adults getting it on. I make the point because we always assume that the "other" person is making a choice even though we didn't make one ourselves.

As to not acting on it, I'm a bit of a libertarian... it's not hurting anyone/anything so have at it. Pedophilia/beastiality are not between consenting adults and are harmful.

shinerbock · #5 10-30-2006, 09:51 AM

Drole, and I'm not really taking a position, I'm just pointing out that the whole "they can't help it" thing isn't really the best legitimate defense for homosexuality. There are also people who would say homosexual relationships are more dangerous than heterosexual relationships, but I don't know that theres anyway of proving/disproving that at this point.

Drolefille · #6 10-30-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Drole, and I'm not really taking a position, I'm just pointing out that the whole "they can't help it" thing isn't really the best legitimate defense for homosexuality. There are also people who would say homosexual relationships are more dangerous than heterosexual relationships, but I don't know that theres anyway of proving/disproving that at this point.

I know you're not, I was just responding

ThetaDancer · #7 10-30-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

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 · #8 10-30-2006, 11:38 AM

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

Drolefille · #9 10-30-2006, 11:56 AM

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 · #10 11-09-2006, 10:12 AM

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 · #11 11-09-2006, 10:21 AM

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 · #12 11-09-2006, 10:46 AM

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.

burgertown · #13 11-12-2006, 02:07 AM

Quote:

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. )