same sex marriage.

[Rowan]

Why? why not? go. I hesistate to give my opinion until ive heard others. BUT, Basically marriage is a word that was created long ago that defines the union between man and woman. Why should this be changed if same sex couples have the opportunity to have the exact same circumstances under the word 'civil union'.

The only argument for this ive heard is that someone doesnt want to "civil union" their partner, they want to "marry" their partner. pretty poor excuse to protest a change of definition for a word.

[Meier Link]

Ok I am going to leave this open for now. Here's a few verbal warnings to those that post on this topic.

This is not a thread on religion. You can discuss religion if it waivers your views on the topic at hand but not to the point of where this becomes a religious thread.

Watch what you say, any form of flamming or harrasment willl be met with a stiff warning.

Discrimination will not be tolerated.

This thead is in the ID for so keep your post on the intelectual side not the dumb ass side. These are just a few verbals, there are indeed more but I am not going to list all of them. Keep in mind I will be monitoring this topic with a fine tooth comb and will close it if things get to out of hand.

(This is a basic reminder that the staff is present here at tff heh)

[Judge Magistrate]

All I'm going to say is I'm not it's strongest supporter. I have alot of gay friends who know my viewpoint and they don't mind. The reason behind that is that they are entitled to do as they wish, and far be it from me to try and change them.

[Rowan]

Trying not to delve into religion Link Meier, but I think its important we aknlowedge the origins of the word since it is a religious word (or at least ive understood it to be).

Holy matrimony (marriage) (a religious word defining the union of man and woman) has been around for almost a thousand years. Since this word is religious in context, If you wish the word definition to be changed, you must seek the church, NOT the government. Otherwise, I really couldn't personally give a crap because it does not effect me in the slightest.

Although!

I am not religious, therfor I shouldn't have the priveldge of being able to marry. This is an argument for the same sex couples to use as descrimination toward their cause. Although the bible assumes the man and woman are religious believers in god and jesus, this does not prevent (most of the time) those who have not been baptised in the holy church to partake in the ceremony of marriage.

When the day comes and I want to legally commit myself to the woman I love (shes amazing) I will ask her to marry me, but it will not be in a church under the eyes of any god, but will be my personal commitment to her in front of our friends and families. Thats what matters to me, thats what I think the ceremony should be about. You can have that in whats called a 'civil union'. I will take that option and I dont see anything wrong with it.

Side note: If im wrong about the origins of the word marriage and it being a religious term (which im almost positive that it is) please feel free to disreguard everything ive said and corrrect me.

[Alpha]

But what if the homo- or bi-sexuals in question are religious? Does the state have the ability to tell a religious institution to perform it's rite of approval on the relationship of two people of the same sex?

Sounds a little anti-secular (in a reverse sense), and hugely problematic. If a Catholic wants to marry a cat, can the state tell the Church that they have to let this person marry a cat, if the Church refuses?

I support same-sex marriage in principle, but don't think it is an adequate solution. What should happen is that marriage no longer be recognised in a legal sense. Make everyone have to get a civil union if they want their relationship recognised legally. If a couple also want to get married, then that is a private decision made by the couple, and pertains to their religion only.

It's like being born or dying. When you're born, you get a birth certificate. When you die, you get a death certificate. These state that you, as a citizen, have been born and have died, respectively. A person may, in addition, be baptised or have a religiously-oriented funeral service (such as a funeral Mass for a Catholic, which isn't technically a religious service for the deceased, but is a service thanking God for that person's life) -- but these are private decisions that relate to the personal faith of the person in question.

So I think that's simple enough. But again, it really is problematic when the people (or perhaps one of the pair) are religious, and want their union recognised legally and religiously. Personally, I think there is nothing in being homosexual that is incompatible with being Christian, so if I was homosexual and wanted to marry, I'd rightly be pretty pissed off.

There are options though, at least here. I know of one (Presbyterian) church in my city that marries homosexual Christians. If I was gay and Christian, I'd probably go there. Though I wouldn't be happy being sidelined like that.

EDIT: Meier can you let me know if this meets your criteria? I don't think I can discuss this with any fewer references to religion.

[Sean]

If a gay man and a lesbian woman marry each other.... is it still gay marriage?


But seriously. Marriage isn't..... well, marriage isn't even serious to a lot of people. I know people who are married just for the tax reasons and date/sleep with other people, there's no "love" or "feelings" behind the "couple." It's just a marriage of convenience.

We live in a society that touts that marriage is "for a man and a woman who love one each other." Most politicians agree with that sentiment, almost verbatim. Yet there are no laws prohibiting a man and a woman who are just friends getting married for tax reasons, financial reasons, or legal reasons, etc etc.

If two homosexuals love one another and want to be married, no one should ever be able to stop that. Plain and simple. Sexual orientation is protected from harassment and from equal opportunity employer laws, and can be used for the basis of a hate crime (i.e. a man kills a gay man BECAUSE he's gay and he's a homophobe, it's not only murder, it's murder with a hate crime punishment tacked on)

Yet the laws of marriage discriminate against them. Religions discriminate against them.

I don't personally LIKE gay people (well, flamboyant men, my cousin and his partner are down to earth "normal" acting guys and I can hang out with them), about as much as I don't LIKE emo kids, or gangster thugs, or preppy women, etc... they're people I generally tend to avoid, but that doesn't stop me from feeling like they deserve the respect and rights that every other human being enjoys. This all stems from religious persecution, plain and simple.

Then again I suppose I am biased. As I mentioned, I have a cousin who has a partner and both have been together for a long time, and they're both good people. Nothing should stop them from getting married if they wanted to.

[Locke4God]

Why not?

Because it erodes social order. Because while natural, it's still a dysfunction. Because it's unavoidably obvious that you're intended to have sex with a member of the opposite sex. Because this issue is made out by the gay community as though they are painting themselves to be this poor trambled on group of peoples. Please, I have red hair and got beat up for wearing tube socks, but I don't see a group of people defending that. Grow up! Because straight men are always going to proclaim their masculinity, which means the issue will never die. Further more it means that growing up a gay male will always be confused as to why he doesn't feel as masculine as the other guys, until he realizes why. Because straight men will always challenge eachothers masculinity, and making them feel bad about doing so is pathetic. Because it's a societal decision as to what we accept in society at large, and contrary to pro-gay advocates belief, most americans are not for gay marriege. Please see the California public vote against it. And that's CALIFORNIA!!! The most liberal state in the country. Please stop trying to make the rest of us accept this. It's fine that you're gay, I'm not going to beat you up for it, but I honestly do not care. Go be gay, but stop trying to make us all celebrate how much you like putting your penis in a male butt.

[Alpha]

Why is obvious that we are not "intended" to be gay?

Intended by who? Why are an estimated 10% of people homosexual?

Why should you care what anyone does in their bedroom?

You didn't make an argument for or against gay marriage as much as an argument about why you dislike homosexuality.

[che]

Why not?

Because it erodes social order. Because while natural, it's still a dysfunction. Because it's unavoidably obvious that you're intended to have sex with a member of the opposite sex.

It may be unavoidable obvious that you're "intended" to reproduce with the opposite sex (sperm + egg = baby), I don't believe that's the whole intention of "sex". It's obvious to me that it's very rare that someone on this earth only has sex to reproduce.

Because this issue is made out by the gay community as though they are painting themselves to be this poor trambled on group of peoples. Please, I have red hair and got beat up for wearing tube socks, but I don't see a group of people defending that. Grow up!

This man singlehandedly is regaining your lost dignity from high school through rioting and protesting since 2010 using the most powerful source available to reach out to a wide audience.

yada yada troll stuff

gonna skiiiiip this part.

Go be gay, but stop trying to make us all celebrate how much you like putting your penis in a male butt.

Which might be exactly what we need! If all the homophobic people don't want to hear about the issue anymore, legalize gay marriage. If gay marraige were legal, you wouldn't have to pretend (or not pretend) to celebrate it. It's not like I celebrate everyone's wedding on earth. I've been to maybe 4 weddings in my life, none of which were a gay marriage.

[Aerif]

As a catholic, I'm sold on the concept that marriage is a religious rite. I personally think that unions performed outside of religion can't really be classified as marriage, I have no idea why I think that way but I just do.

If you're getting married in a registry office by a government official then it's just not the same to me. It becomes more of a legal thing than a divine thing since it is being officiated by a person strongly associated with the law. I just can't see it as marriage.

I've been confused for a long time about my own opinion on homosexuality itself. People often argue the likes of it being 'unnatural', which I see as a valid point since the natural order dictates reproduction, however at the same time if the behaviour was 'unnatural' then anything naturally created would in theory not be born that way. Humans are natural, so anything they do must be seen as 'natural'. Of course, this opens up the floodgates of other human sexual behaviours such as bestiality and paedophillia which can invalidate the 'natural' argument.

But back on point, since I consider marriage a religion thing, homosexual marriage should be recognised if a church is willing to recognise it. This does not mean that churches who oppose homosexual marriage should be forced to conduct same sex marriages. In the same way if a hypothetical protestant church named 'The Church of Homosexuality' existed, then they should not have to recognise or conduct heterosexual marraiges if they chose not to.

I think my opinion of the topic at hand (because for some reason I'm really struggling to come to a conclusion as to what I actually want to say) is that marriage should be recognised as a religious rite rather than a civil rite. Regardless of the genders of the participating parties, I think if a couple enter into a partnership facillitated only by the government then it can't really be a 'marriage'. But if a church is willing to marry a homosexual couple then it is a 'marriage'.

As with all my posts the hardcore atheists can go f*** themselves.

edit: Also if the R.C. church began recognising homosexual marriage I would be fine with it.

[Imposter]

I'm gonna plead ignorance on this one ahead of time because I really don't have a super good understanding of the homosexual thought process, even though it is pretty prevelant in my family (I believe this to be by choice and not genes though). But this is the way I see it, marriage use to be something sacred, holy, a life long commitment, and divinely blessed. (People made their vows before God and men). I personally still hold to that definition and believe that marriage was given specifically to men and women for a few main reasons. These are not in order of importance though...1. Intamacy and reproduction, 2. To be as close to a picture of the a good relationship between Christ and his Church as we can get, 3. To show the life long commitment of love you've made.

I know I'll eat flak for this but I don't really see how the homosexual community can meet the first two and lets be honest hardly anyone does the third. So in a broad stroke they are out three for three (sure there can be exceptions). The Bible makes it pretty clear in the book of Ephesians that the husband is suppose to love the wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it for the purpose of making her into a perfect, spotless bride. (I highly doubt any of you care but perfect in the greek texts means mature and spotless would refer to being set apart so close to Christ that she acts as a mirror reflecting him to everyone around them). Depending on your stance on the Bible homosexuals are out already because God says marriage is for a man and woman but I doubt many of you care what the good book says.

Like Locke said reproduction can't occur with two gals or two guys (What would happen if the gay community became the majority? How long till the human race is extinct? I guess we would just turn reproduction into a job and pay ladies to have babies....). So they are out of the first two.

Marriage today is a pretty tarnished picture of what it should be but I would say no to any homosexuals who were interested. Divorce rates are high and adultery is rampant, if anything I would discourage my gay friends for even bothering, heck with the way people live today I would discourage anyone that didn't have a good definition of marriage. Even love is so skewly?(don't know if this is even a word haha) defined these days and is really only based on self pleasure. In short marriage doesn't last these days. Why go through the hassle only to be shafted by your partner when they find someone that pleases them better.

[Judge Magistrate]

As a catholic, I'm sold on the concept that marriage is a religious rite. I personally think that unions performed outside of religion can't really be classified as marriage, I have no idea why I think that way but I just do.

If you're getting married in a registry office by a government official then it's just not the same to me. It becomes more of a legal thing than a divine thing since it is being officiated by a person strongly associated with the law. I just can't see it as marriage.

I've been confused for a long time about my own opinion on homosexuality itself. People often argue the likes of it being 'unnatural', which I see as a valid point since the natural order dictates reproduction, however at the same time if the behaviour was 'unnatural' then anything naturally created would in theory not be born that way. Humans are natural, so anything they do must be seen as 'natural'. Of course, this opens up the floodgates of other human sexual behaviours such as bestiality and paedophillia which can invalidate the 'natural' argument.

But back on point, since I consider marriage a religion thing, homosexual marriage should be recognised if a church is willing to recognise it. This does not mean that churches who oppose homosexual marriage should be forced to conduct same sex marriages. In the same way if a hypothetical protestant church named 'The Church of Homosexuality' existed, then they should not have to recognise or conduct heterosexual marraiges if they chose not to.

I think my opinion of the topic at hand (because for some reason I'm really struggling to come to a conclusion as to what I actually want to say) is that marriage should be recognised as a religious rite rather than a civil rite. Regardless of the genders of the participating parties, I think if a couple enter into a partnership facillitated only by the government then it can't really be a 'marriage'. But if a church is willing to marry a homosexual couple then it is a 'marriage'.

As with all my posts the hardcore atheists can go f*** themselves.

edit: Also if the R.C. church began recognising homosexual marriage I would be fine with
it.

I'm with you man, but I don't like to create unnecessary waves. We were told by God to love all people, that includes gays, as such I won't dislike them.

[Heartless Angel]

I'm with Alpha on this one actually, much as I usually like arguing with him. Marriage is a religious thing, seperation of church and state would therefore immediately derive the conclusion that marriage (at least its religious aspects) should not have any place in law. The law will accept your civil union regardless of you or your partner's gender, as it is the law's puprose to protect everybody regardless of who they are. That is NOT the purpose of religion.

The law can make people tolerate you, they can not and should not make people accept you. If a church believes you're a freak of nature and wants nothing to do with you, that's their right. And I'm not saying that as an anti gay thing, I'd hold that view for anybody. If I walked into a church and they refused to give me and my mature female human of choice a wedding for whatever reason, I'd give em' the finger and try a different church. If they don't like me, I don't want anything to do with them either. If none of em wanted me, they can all go **** themsleves, because I don't want any of them anymore either.

The way I look at it, gays being upset that a church that hates them won't give them a religious ceremony is alot like blacks being upset that the KKK won't pal around with them and invite them to riots. Why in the **** would you want to associate with these people and organizations and participate in their activities when they hate you? Insiting that people stop hating you isn't going to change them, they still hate you. Even if a law was passed that said they couldn't chase you away from churches and had to give you a wedding, they still hate you. No law is ever going to make people who hate you stop hating you. If you want acceptance, find people that accept you, stop trying to make those who don't accept you start accepting you, it's never going to work. Hell, go start your own near-identical religion that does accept homosexuality and find a gay pastor to marry you or something.

[Alpha]

Even if a law was passed that said they couldn't chase you away from churches and had to give you a wedding, they still hate you. No law is ever going to make people who hate you stop hating you.

Truer words have never been spoke.

Pass a law to make an unwilling congregation marry homosexuals. Right. But if they were unwilling to marry them in the first instance, how many homosexuals would be there?

Moreover, how awkward and horrible would the service be?

While I do not think that it is right that a church is able to discriminate on the basis of gender and sexuality (violating human rights legislation), it is not common sense that forcing a given religion to comply with a piece of legislation is actually going to do anything for gay rights.

Which is why I support the principle, but think there are better options (what I said about civil unions).

[Unknown Entity]

If you're getting married in a registry office by a government official then it's just not the same to me. It becomes more of a legal thing than a divine thing since it is being officiated by a person strongly associated with the law. I just can't see it as marriage.

This. This is why I dislike the term "civil partnership". That just sounds like being given Bourboun biscuits over Oreos - it disappointing. "Marriage" has a wonderful ring to it, and you think of love when you say it. "Civil partnership" not only sounds official/legal, but it seems grey and dull too. I was talking about this the other day with a friend, funnily enough.

I do think homosexuals should be accepted and recognised in religious activities as such, as I do think marriage is a religious rite (but not limited to religion), and is why I hold no interest in it. I just think that if religious (or non-religious) gay or lesbian couples wish to marry, then they should be able to marry. I don't think it's a sin, and even if it was, I thought God was a loving being with a forgiving nature.

Also, the Sanctity of Marriage is a "joke" in my opinion anyway. People live in sin, marry off before they've found their feet, marry while pregnant at the alter, engage in adultery, file for divorce, or even go through a novelty drive-tru wedding booth in Vegas. Marriage ceremonies can be done in a vehicle, with wedding picture novelty cup gifts, yet two gay people who love each other dearly aren't allowed the same rights as straight people?

The way I look at it is marriage will win or fail no matter who it is. If two straight people can make it last, good for them. But if they can't and divorce, then what of the Sanctity of Marriage? What if a gay or lesbian couple could make it work? They're still prone to divorce, don't get me wrong, but it's the same story either way. Everyone deserves to display and declare their love in God's presence if they wish and/or so believe.

[Furore]

I'm gonna need to get religious for this one, both as a Christian and as religion is the main cause of the issue.

Marriage isn't always defined as being between a man and a woman legally as some of the homosexuals here pointed out much to my amusement (it is here after a later amendment, but originally it wasn't). From what I've read, committed monogomous relationships with associated traditions predate Christianity.

I'm a live and let live, politics should remain secular sort of thinker, so I'd love to see homosexual marriage be made legal, but do not feel religions should be forced to provide them where it conflicts with the religion - the state should provide wedding ceremonies and other bodies capable of marrying two individuals also allowed where it does not conflict with beliefs.

I'm a Christian more into Jesus' example in the New Testament than anything prior. He never forced or coerced any man into doing anything, merely spread the word of God and allowed people the CHOICE to follow. My beliefs stem from the freedom I feel we've been given. Perhaps there will be consequences to pay, but some people lack faith and belief in God anyway so why should their life before those negative consequences be devoid of happiness? The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me personally. There aren't many bad things one can say of Jesus apart from those that believe he was a fraud, but then observe the contempt and hatred some feel for a religion and it's adherents when outspoken members try to deny those without faith in the religion opportunities based on their beliefs.

In short, why not let people live as they wish to? You can voice your opinion to someone, but think of the consequences of imposing it on them.

[Phantom]

Speaking as a gay man, I definitely support same sex marriage. I couldn't care less about religion, or what people spout about what marriage should be. All I care about is we all treated as people not second class minority citizens. If we love each other, why not get married? Some say that us gays getting marriage is like marring animals and such but really people who say things like that are just ignorant bigots. I would love to get married someday to the man I love, just like anyone else no matter what sexuality would. And I'm hoping that one day us gays can get married in every state, not just a select few.

[Chez Daja]

Remember that bit at weddings which states "til death us do part" ? Everybody suddenly jumped on the bandwagon and decided that actually, yes, married people have the right to 'unmarry'. That wasn't something we saw much in the old days.

I support gay marriage. Why not? I'm a realist and an atheist, I don't care about the religious aspects and I think for people to be getting all tearyeyed and bitchy about gay people who want to get married is ridiculous. Rather than waste time and resources on something that really should be allowed, why not think about all the other crap thats' going on in the world?

[Lily]

As long as people aren't trying to marry park ****ing benches then I couldnt give a stuff what they want to change the definition of marriage too. It might be an age old concept, but times change, definitions have to change to define... well... shit

the ideal of marriage is 2 people coming together that should actually stay together til one of them croaks (which is why ive never been engaged and im gettin on abit now - ive never seen a future with whoever Ive been with, the whole marriage conversation would pop up and that would be my cue for ending things..) and not get divorced 5 minutes down the line. But well. Marriage just doesnt mean what it used to anymore, so why should changing a definition matter? Or the sex of the couple involved?

[NikkiLinkle]

From my understanding, 'marriage' is a religious thing. But, why can't we change that and make it about, 2 people who want to bind and celebrate their love and life together?

We live in 2011, regardless of religion or whatever, times have changed, people have evolved, so I think it's times for the attitude against same sex marriage, to change. Gay people are here to stay, and they should have the right to marry their loved one, as much as anyone else!

[Alpha]

But it has changed. A civil union is what happens. We don't need to change marriage so that it includes homosexuals, we need to change marriage so that it is purely and solely a religious rite. All couples who want a legally-recognized relationship should have to get a civil union.

You can't force a religious group (which marries people) to do anything -- secularism must apply both ways.

In order for that to work adequately, each state would have to look at what it means to a have a civil union in their jurisdiction. Here, for instance, couples in a civil union cannot adopt children (regardless of sexuality). That has to change.

So to be clear: the definition of marriage only has to change so that it means LESS, not more. Civil unions have to be expanded. That is the only secular option.

[OceanEyes28]

It isn't so much an issue of "Let us get married in your church" as it is "Let me visit my partner of 10 years in the hospital or carry out his/her wishes, etc."

Picture two people who have been together for years, love each other, take care of each other. They are monogamous and have planed their lives around each other. One of them becomes ill and is hospitalized. The family of the sick person does not approve of the relationship and has disowned him/her. However, the union between the lovers is not legally recognized, so responsibility for the incapacitated goes to the estranged family, who bar the partner from seeing his/her loved one. The sick partner falls into a vegetative state, the partner knowing his/her love would prefer to be let go, but the family keeps the body alive. And in the case of an older couple, the family can start collecting the sick person's social security. It doesn't go to the partner. This goes on until the body dies and funeral arrangements are made. Again, the partner was not allowed to say goodbye to the person he/she spent his/her life with and they are not allowed at the funeral.

This story is not an unusual one.

A story I heard about recently was about two men who have been together for years, married seven years ago in Massachusetts. One of them has AIDS. His partner takes care of him. The caregiver is being deported.
Caregiver of husband with AIDS facing split by deportation over DOMA – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

That's ****ing sad.

These people don't need to get married in your church. They just don't want to be forced apart or denied the basic rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. It in no way affects you if two people who love each other are legally joined. Like, honestly, why do you care?

The people who call the loudest for less government are often times the same people who demand that government define for all of us (religious or not) what marriage is. That sort of disconnect is fine for your house of worship, but leave it out of the law.

Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that if the religious want to keep the word "marriage," they can have it. IDGAF. If this is only about semantics, keep the word, and change the law. I identify as heterosexual, but I'll call my shit a civil union or a pube party or a whatthe****ever if it means my partner and I are legally joined and people leave us alone to live our lives.


Also I agree with Alpha.

P.S. If you're someone who believes homosexuality is wrong, but you don't think church should control state (and vice versa), I'm probably not talking to you. Thank you for being reasonable.

[nickness89]

It in no way affects you if two people who love each other are legally joined. Like, honestly, why do you care?

This. Personally, also being gay, I'm not so worried about the whole argument. I stay out of it, it's effing ridiculous. Do the people arguing over petty things like this actually have nothing better to do? Like help the abused, poor, povert and hungry?

The basic Christian premise is to "hate the Sin, love the Sinner" ... so why not just do that instead of saying "you're a gay person, so you can not be religiously married, only through civil partnership." God (if there is one) loves all people, he just doesn't like their sins. If a gay/lesbian/transgendered person can't be religiously married because of their sin, then if I had my way, I would make it so that ANYONE who commited a sin would share the same fate. Every sin committed is as bad as the next, so why is homosexuality the only one that is scrutinized?

^^^^^See, this is why I keep out of it, I generally just don't give a damn, but then when I dig deeper, I spout my mouth off

Also, as a gay guy talking to other gay people: Stop moaning about such things. Us gay people are now treated a hell of a lot better than any other minority in the world. Be glad that we are classed as equal to all other people now, or would you rather we still lived in a world where we would be hung for being homosexual?? Stop whining, marriage isn't that important anyway, if you love someone, then that's awesome. I love my man, but I'm not going out of my way to commit to having a "title." I'd rather stay the way we are just now, because, let's face it, it's a statistical fact that marriage = less sex, and I don't wanna be giving up on that anytime soon.

@seanb - We don't celebrate sticking our dicks up other men's butts, that's the attention-seeking, nothing-better-to-do gay whiners. The rest of us are mainly more private about our sex lives than most straight people would ever hope to be.

And in conclusion, I am FOR all types of marriage, obviously not animal marriage (or does that now make me discriminatory??). Two people love each other, if they want to get married, let them, how the hell is it going to affect you anyways? The only thing i can think of, is that the people against gay marriage, are worrie that their "voices" would have been ignored, and that religion wouldn't be the single biggest power in the world (which it now isn't, a helluva of Christians are just as broken as their sins nowadays, same goes for every other religion).

Oh, and this is not an attack on religion, you should have noticed, I have made an attack on the pettiness of people, including religious AND gay.

[RagnaToad]

1. Why would you have anything to say about something that doesn't affect your life in any way?

2. If marriage is such a 'sacred ritual' reserved for heterosexuals, make divorce illegal.

[Rowan]

From my understanding, 'marriage' is a religious thing. But, why can't we change that and make it about, 2 people who want to bind and celebrate their love and life together?

We live in 2011, regardless of religion or whatever, times have changed, people have evolved, so I think it's times for the attitude against same sex marriage, to change. Gay people are here to stay, and they should have the right to marry their loved one, as much as anyone else!

Thats upto the church to decide, noone else.

[lovehearty42]

Wow! This is a wonderful discussion. I am a Christian, as such I feel obligated to speak to what the Bible says about marriage. In none of the instances in which marriage is described in the Bible is the consent of women required. Considering that we live in a society that requires consent from both parties entering into a marriage, the definition of marriage has already been changed. As that is the case, I think it should be easy enough to come to a fair compromise on this issue... and that we shouldn't be following such an old text when it comes to the moral musings of the 21st century.

I agree with many of the people posting that marriage is a religious rite. However, for the longest time, the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) wouldn't touch marriage with a 20 foot pole. They'd be more than happy to punish those icky sodomites, though! *rolls eyes*

I think the main problem is the fact that there are far too many extremists on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, there are gay people who are WAY too open about it. There are also some anti-GLBT Christians (and members of other various religions) who are way to vocal about all the violent things they want to do to GLBT people. Honestly, I think it boils down to the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment. Religious institutions are free to turn away couples they deem unfit for marriage. If that includes gay and lesbian couples because they view homosexual relationships as sinful, so be it. However, the government cannot deny gay and lesbian couples equal protections under the law that are afforded to heterosexual married couples. I can only speak from a Christian experience, as that is the way I experience spirituality, and I can say that there are a number of wonderful denominations out there who are open and affirming toward GLBT people (United Church of Christ, United Universalists, Metropolitan Community Church to name a few). Furthermore, views within other denominations on GLBT people tend to vary from congregation to congregation. Honestly, I think if someone does want to be married in a temple of some sort, they need to make sure that they share the beliefs of the faith community among whom they wish to be wed.

In short, the government should not be able to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to a civil union. However, faith communities should not be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples. If gay and lesbian couples wish to be married in a temple/church/mosque/whatever, they need to find one they wouldn't mind attending regular services at, and the same goes for heterosexual couples, too.

I hope that's made sense? I mean, I'm a Christian, a transsexual woman, AND I'm in a lesbian relationship. I'm just waiting to be burned at the stake for witchcraft...

Edit: I just fixed some wording so as not to come across as... I don't know. I just hope I don't sound like an ass.