Gay Marriage - Yes? No? Maybe so?

[Blackbound 4]

I would actually go with 1, being because I know both Homosexual Men and Homosexual Women, and I would like to see something like this done for them.

[badjedidude 0]

This being a democratic-ish society and all...and me being a PoliSci guy, I'd say it's up to the states. I think that states should hold open, popular votes to decide the issue. I mean, come on.

 

It's about marriage...not exactly a pressing federal issue.

 

So really either way is fine with me.

[Unka Josh 0]

I'd have to disagree with you about the popular-vote thing, actually.

 

I mean, mixed-race marriages weren't legalized by popular vote. That's a human rights issue, right there.

 

Same principle.

[badjedidude 0]

I'd have to disagree with you about the popular-vote thing, actually.

 

I mean, mixed-race marriages weren't legalized by popular vote. That's a human rights issue, right there.

 

Same principle.

 

The reason I say it should be popular vote is that once we give the federal government the power to classify peoples and races and marriage...then we get into some scary territory. Nazi Germany, anyone? Even today some european countries are beginning to marginalize certain groups by legally classifying them as socially obtuse/unneeded. I say keep the authority at the local/state level...let as-direct-as-can-be democracy rule.

 

If people are against it, they have to be persuaded that it's the right way to go...that's fundamental American democracy. People should be shown the information and persuaded to agree, not forced to comply by federal authority. Popular vote, says I!

[Unka Josh 0]

Uh, that's backwards. Either that, or we already did it by legalizing interracial marriages. All this would be is removing a set of divisions among citizens. That's not anything even remotely like what you described.

 

At all.

 

In any way.

 

I mean, seriously. When interracial marriages were legalized, it wasn't by popular vote. Desegregation? Not a popular vote. See the trend here?

 

It's human rights. Human rights are not something that you decide by popular vote-- that's why we have the First Amendment.

 

And the right for two consenting adults to be married is a basic human right. Furthermore, it's the only instance of contract law where the gender (and, until relatively recently, race) of the participants was a factor.

 

Basically, what you described is, in fact, the position that the opponents of gay marriage are taking.

[badjedidude 0]

I disagree. Firstly, it was through the judicial process that interracial marriage was allowed, not through specific Congressional legislation. Loving v Virginia, if I'm not mistaken. With desegregation, again, it was mostly through judicial review that segregation laws were STRUCK DOWN, not (many) new laws put into effect by federal Congress.

 

You're right, these things weren't done by popular vote...but they WERE heavily influenced and pushed by grassroots movements and lobbying by concerned citizens, just as is happening with gay marriage right now. In my opinion it simply does not justify federal legislation. It's alright with me if gay marriage is legalized judicially by striking down marriage "protection" laws...I just think taking it to the federal, legislative level is unnecessary and is giving too much power to the fed. government.

 

Ok, devil's advocate now: Remember, there are MILLIONS of others who don't believe that it is a human right, and millions more who don't care either way. They still deserve a voice, no matter if it's a human right or not. They believe it ISN'T just as strongly as you DO. Right or wrong, they have and deserve a say in things in this democratic system, hence I say popular vote. There were millions who still argued against interracial marriage, but equality was achieved through protesting, civil suits, etc...is it any less possible to do this for gay marriage? Again: IT IS HAPPENING NOW.

 

No need for fed. Popular vote.

[FaithUkwuomah 0]

Honestly, as a Christian, I am strongly against gay "marriage". Why? For one, because before God its a sin, and that God created marriage solely between one man and one woman regardless what new laws say otherwise. Whether be it civil unions or whatever they call it, I don't buy it.

 

Plus such sinful events should never happen in the house of God. Ever. Cos before God its just an abomination.

 

In the modernized world we live in, people (especially Christians) are labelled as "homophobes" for not agreeing with homosexuality or anything related to it such as same-sex 'marriage', which is just foolish mentality.

 

The world considers what God clearly tells is unnatural to be natural (Romans 1:26-27). Some may argue that God's law forbidding homosexuality was only for the Old Covenant which God made between Himself and the Israelites. However, a quick search of the Scriptures will show that the New Testament has more verses condemning homosexuality than the Old Testament does.

 

In fact, Jesus himself gave God's definition of marriage in Mark 10:6-9, when He was speaking about marriage and grounds of divorce. He said that in the beginning 'God made them male and female.' He also said that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

 

Equality-wise, the so-called gay "marriage" itself has no respect for equality whatsoever, as it will only not only destroy the true meaning of marriage. It will has no respect for freedom of conscience, and harsh restrictions of freedom of speech.  An example of this, is the case of an evangelist named Tony Miano, who was arrested in London for using "homophobic" language whilst preaching from 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12, where it speaks on sexual immorality.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2vu9C… (In the video the police arrive at 25 minutes and 37 seconds and Mr. Miano was arrested at 38 minutes and 11 seconds)

 

Social-wise, it will promote more adultery, more child abuse, encourage more divorces among heterosexual married couples. Having mentioned of child abuse, is the case of a small boy who was abused by two homosexual men: christiannews.net/2013/07/06/h…

 

And spiritual-wise, the practice itself will even promote more sin, such as lust and immorality, turning the 21st century into Sodom and Gomorrah all over again, and eventually lead this very nation to Hell fire.

 

*ahem*

 

Now, does that mean that I hate gay people? No. You may be wondering why. That's because God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. And that is why He sent His one and only Son Jesus Christ to die for their sins, your sins, my sins, and the sins of the whole world, so that they can be set free from the bondage of sin. Why? Because God's forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshiper, murderer, liar or thief according to the Bible (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). God promises that if you turn from your sins and put your trust in Him like you trust a parachute, he will save you from the power and punishment of sin. To all those who will believe in Jesus Christ He gives the strength to have victory over sin, which includes homosexuality. For God's word stands forever (1 Peter 1:25).

 

Overall, I'm against gay "marriage" because its a sin before God.

Edited April 24, 2014 by FaithUkwuomah

[Bob423 52]

According to a monk somewhere (I'm sorry I can't provide any good sources :() the part about "gay marriage" in the bible does not actually refer to gays and is actually referring to not cheating on your spouse or something. I forgot exactly what I read about it, but I do know that there's nothing wrong with it.

I don't think there's anything to add to this 5 year old topic and on some forums posting in it would be against the rules, as it has clearly died, but here we don't care about necroposting. I, personally, would like this topic to be locked since I don't think there's anything to discuss. However, there is nothing that is actually wrong with posting here.

 

I'm glad that you can still accept people that do things that you do not approve of. It gives me hope that, although some people still think that homosexuality is a sin, there are people who pay more attention to the "god loves everyone" part than the other parts that were not originally supposed to be taken literally anyway. Unfortunately, it isn't always clear which parts were meant to be taken literally, and which parts are metaphors.

 

I believe that it only takes common sense to know how to treat others. It seems like you're the kind of person who is very religious, but obviously not without sense.

 

I think many people would do well to remember this:

"I do not mind what your way of life is as long as it doesn't involve trying to change mine." -As far as I know, this is a quote by me.

[kaboth 6]

I say just let people do what they want, because religion or not they will do it anyway; or stay together for that matter if he/she wasn't even married. Nothing can come between people who love each other except for people who have to thrive in another persons buisness.

 

The bible is a religious book and all, but some people think as; it's just words and pages. It's not but people should follow the bible and religion. Other than everything, it's the peoples choice in the matter.

Edited April 17, 2014 by kaboth

[Marked 197]

If your answer is no because of faith, that's perfectly valid. Arguments on the finer points of religion were done in the last decade and I'd be happy to never witness an atheist vs religion argument ever again. You may as well challenge a brick wall to table tennis.

But dude then you said some odd stuff, like

Equality-wise, the so-called gay "marriage" itself has no respect for equality whatsoever, as it will only not only destroy the true meaning of marriage.

(1) Equality and (2) destroying the true meaning of marriage: two completely different things. Whatever you opinion is on the meaning of marriage, its got nothing to do with equality.

 

Equality is having everyone in the same boat. It's actually saying we're not going to distinguish (ie discriminate) between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship, and therefore any two humans of legal age have the legal right to marry.

 

Furthermore, it's an absolute trademark of religion to halt social change (and technology for that matter). For example, the Chinese were 1,000 years more advance than any other country on earth. That was 1,000 years ago. It was religion that shunned new invention. My point is that the "meaning of marriage" must change with social values. We cannot live in the past and say marriage is for what it was historically for.

 

only destroy the true meaning of marriage

You gotta be careful with your terminology also. "Destroy" is like saying if we let homosexuals marry then marriage is ruined for everyone. And that is ever so slightly homophobic.

[Bigace360 38]

100% agree with @Marked, and if the LBGT wants to be a miserable married couple like some straight married couples in the world, I say let them. It's their life not mines nor should I care.

[Marked 197]

Exactly, as our good friend Lizzie S said, why shouldn't they be miserable like the rest of us? (who're married).

 

But yeah, it's a weird time to be born. I think globalization is taking us over, particularly coz of the interweb and technology. People discriminate against the unknown but I can easily foresee a future we're everyone's just going to say, this just another person, who cares that they're different? To b honest, its the old people who are racist homophobes. Maybe minorities (eg my girlfriend) walk around detecting racism like they're walking around with metal detectors (eg exaggerate or esp. sensitive to it). Or maybe I'm just being stupid coz I'm a majority.

 

There's nothing wrong with healthy competition between borders. Like, lets sanction them damn dirty yanks coz of who they are, etc. :P

[Bigace360 38]

@Marked: actually I would say it would have to deal more with religion that put this into their heads, because humans have done weird things with each other and animals way before religion. Religion just puts fear in peoples heads that if they don't change their wicked was they won't be saved and send to the paradise called "Heaven." These religions I believe is what causes every next generation to be stupider and stupider.  

[Rajaat99 3]

I am a Christian and my morals and faith say that homosexuality is a sin, but it is not my place to judge, nor is it the job of government to enforce my morals on others. Also, at least in the US, the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. Government should not have a say in who gets married, as long as it's between legal adults. Even if it's more than two. So, I'll go with number 5. Also, civil unions should be between any legal age adults.

5) Marriage in general should be done away with and everyone should enter into civil unions - marriage would then lose the rights attached with it and become solely a religious practice, while civil unions would replace marriage and include all previous rights attached with it.

[Marked 197]

5) Marriage in general should be done away with and everyone should enter into civil unions - marriage would then lose the rights attached with it and become solely a religious practice, while civil unions would replace marriage and include all previous rights attached with it.

I disagree with no5. The only difference between marriage and a civil union is the title (in that scenario). Even in practice, homosexuals would choose marriage, like everyone. Why would anyone choose a civil union over marriage when civil unions were made just to give the homosexuals something like marriage but with non-legal status? Number 5 is Christians saying give us back marriage, its ours.

 

Also, at least in the US, the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. Government should not have a say in who gets married, as long as it's between legal adults. Even if it's more than two

I'm not quite sure where the "US" is (isn't it a state of Australia?), but that's an interesting viewpoint. It think that's tricky because the legal rights associated with marriage are quite important: dealing with personal property when two people separate, adoption, and tons of other things. You're saying that its a law that regulates how we are to live our lives, but idk, I feel like the law should always exist around marriage and reflect societal values. In particular the crime of bigamy (crime to marry whilst already married) which enforces monogamy, but who is the government to say that's how we should live our lives?

[Rajaat99 3]

I disagree with no5. The only difference between marriage and a civil union is the title (in that scenario). Even in practice, homosexuals would choose marriage, like everyone. Why would anyone choose a civil union over marriage when civil unions were made just to give the homosexuals something like marriage but with non-legal status? Number 5 is Christians saying give us back marriage, its ours.

 

I'm not quite sure where the "US" is (isn't it a state of Australia?), but that's an interesting viewpoint. It think that's tricky because the legal rights associated with marriage are quite important: dealing with personal property when two people separate, adoption, and tons of other things. You're saying that its a law that regulates how we are to live our lives, but idk, I feel like the law should always exist around marriage and reflect societal values. In particular the crime of bigamy (crime to marry whilst already married) which enforces monogamy, but who is the government to say that's how we should live our lives?

The US in this instance is the United States of America. I live here and have all of my experience with the law here. If I saw anything that doesn't make sense in your country, that is why.

In my opinion, the government should not be involved in marriage at all. No law should even mention marriage, because it's none of the governments business who gets married. A civil union would just impart the rights (social security and things like that) that we currently associate with marriage. You could go get a civil union with any legal age adult, it wouldn't matter who it was.

Marriage would become strictly a religious institution, which is fine with me. There would be no legal status, benefits, or penalties associated with it in any way. If you got married to person A, you could also file for them to be your civil union partner if you wanted to, or have someone else entirely be your civil union partner.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Rajaat99

[Ardaceus 21]

Being in Canada has some great benefits like how being homosexual is legal now. So it's not really something I think about, due to it being dealt with. I find it very cruel however when anybody is judged based on their feelings to others or to their religion. What I think these motha f*****s should do is shut the hell up, go home, and never interact with these people again if you hate them so much. It's a choice for someone to be dissing another person, and it's none of their business to judge or get involved with someone else's personal life. It should be legal for all homosexuals to be allowed to marry and love each other, due to the fact that it's what that person wants, and it's what makes them happy. Like it's said: "We are all born equal, but society makes us different."

 

I find it very odd however of the concept of marriage, like what is the point of getting married? You're with that special someone, you've been living in the same house for 4 years, and look happy together, does marriage do anything (Besides the benefits, but that wasn't until recently)? You can have a child while not married, you can go on vacations while married or not (aka honeymoon), you can get divorced while not married (It's called a break up, and it's far easier than a divorce), you can still cheat while in a relationship or marriage, there is no difference. You can just marry one day and be where you were 4 days ago.

 

Sigh, one can only hope the world will change somehow. Ardi out.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Ardaceus

[Kitsuki 17]

that is quite the necropost XD

 

Hmm, everything is agreeable, idc much about restating what everyone else has already said. Won't address that.

 

As for marriage, it's making the relationship official. Rules of the old days, like no cheating if you're in marriage. Kind of sad that people did it regardless and still do now. Just don't get married if you're going to cheat, for God's sake, romp around when you're not married. Marriage is a permanent bond between you and your partner--since I'm a Catholic I view it as something very precious. The church has some rules about it that I'd like to abide to, were I ever to marry. Imo marrying someone means that they're the only one for you, and you both recognise it and that's why you're getting married.

 

... But if you're marrying just for benefits, that takes all the sentiment away, and it means nothing. :P