Gay Marriage? Or just legal benefits

[PolySciGuy]

Alright, personally I don't think that gay marriage should be allowed, seeing as it is (was, should be) a religious institution. And according to most religions, acting upon Homosexual Desires is not allowed. Personally I would advocate for a status that would entitle gay couples to everything married couples get (tax benefits, heir status etc) but it shouldn't be called Marriage, not should it be able to be preformed by a priest, I know there is a name for that but I can't think of what it is called right now :doh [edit] civil union

So, what does everyone think?

-Gay Marraige should be allowed
-Civil Union should be fine
-No marriage rights at all for homosexual couples

 

[jfuh]

If marriage is to be reserved as a religious only, then all "marriages" need be called something else.
Separate but equal is not equal.

 

[DeeJayH]

i must say
this issue has nothing to do with religion
a religion can marry anybody it wants in any way
it is the governments recognition of marriage as the union of 2 people
and whether that is limited to man/woman or expanded to man/man & woman/woman that is the issue
which i want to stay between a man and a woman

 

[PolySciGuy]

how can you say that marriage has nothing to do with religion? Marriage has tradtitionaly been a union between a man and a woman, sancified through a church. Thats why priests used to have the express right of marrying people. Homosexual couples should not be allowed a christian marriage, simply because it is a contradiction of terms.

Never once did I make the arguement that Marriage and Civil Union are equal. Marriage is condoned by both the state and a religion, Civil Union is simply condoned by the state. If a homosexual couple wants to get married, they need to find a religion in which that act does not go against that religions simple moral codes.

 

[DeeJayH]

how can you say that marriage has nothing to do with religion? Marriage has tradtitionaly been a union between a man and a woman, sancified through a church. Thats why priests used to have the express right of marrying people. Homosexual couples should not be allowed a christian marriage, simply because it is a contradiction of terms.

Never once did I make the arguement that Marriage and Civil Union are equal. Marriage is condoned by both the state and a religion, Civil Union is simply condoned by the state. If a homosexual couple wants to get married, they need to find a religion in which that act does not go against that religions simple moral codes.

wrong
if religious marriages were nothign more than civil unions to the state, there would be no debate currently going on
the current debate has nothing to do with the traditional religious view of marriage
but the governments view
which until recently has been the same as the church
but it looks like it is about to become more, liberal, for lack of a better word
it has nothing to do with the way you see things
but the way things were seen by teh govt and they way they may be seen by teh govt in the future

 

[PolySciGuy]

then what is the discreprency? Why not institute a Civil Union? It isn't marriage, it's not called marriage, it simply stops homosexual couples from getting shafted by the government if one of them dies, and helps them through tax breaks.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Then what is the discreprency? IMHO i think the government shouldn't recognize marriages at all! I think there should be a seperation of church and state and that Marriage should be a status entitled to a man and a woman given thourough a church. The former role of "marriage" as far as the government is concerned would be fulfuled through a Civil Union. One of the ways ANY TWO PEOPLE AT ALL could obtain a civil union is through marriage, but not the only way. I think that you could form a civil union with your non-sexual room mate of either gender, just for the tax break or in case something bad happens.

 

[DeeJayH]

Then what is the discreprency? IMHO i think the government shouldn't recognize marriages at all! I think there should be a seperation of church and state and that Marriage should be a status entitled to a man and a woman given thourough a church. The former role of "marriage" as far as the government is concerned would be fulfuled through a Civil Union. One of the ways ANY TWO PEOPLE AT ALL could obtain a civil union is through marriage, but not the only way. I think that you could form a civil union with your non-sexual room mate of either gender, just for the tax break or in case something bad happens.

than it comes down to the fact that your solution is nothing but semantics
it is not about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman that has evolved from religion
just that the gays call it something, anything, else

I have no problem with civil unions, but that is the irony of the position i take as pointed out by others
it is but a word

 

[PolySciGuy]

there is a vast difference if you believe in god.

the church has no problem with being gay, it is the action that is not allowed. Gay couples are going to explress homosexuality reguardless of what the church says, so they shouldn't be able to sanctify their relationship inside that body

The united states government has no laws about whom you may have sexual relations with (save rape and stat. rape but you get my point)

Therefore, I see no reason why homosexual couples (or anyone else) shouldn't have all of the physical monetary and politcal benefits provided by marriage. However I do not think they should be able to sanctify their relationship through any of the currently established religious organizations

 

[DeeJayH]

there is a vast difference if you believe in god.

the church has no problem with being gay, it is the action that is not allowed. Gay couples are going to explress homosexuality reguardless of what the church says, so they shouldn't be able to sanctify their relationship inside that body

The united states government has no laws about whom you may have sexual relations with (save rape and stat. rape but you get my point)

Therefore, I see no reason why homosexual couples (or anyone else) shouldn't have all of the physical monetary and politcal benefits provided by marriage. However I do not think they should be able to sanctify their relationship through any of the currently established religious organizations

actually there are states, i believe in the bible belt, where anal sex is against the law to discriminate against homosexuals

oh yeah, and if there is a god
he is an absentee slum lord unworthy of worship

 

[Just Me 2]

I'm seriously torn on this one. While I do think that any couple should be able to be happy and have the benefits (federal/State) of a married couple I just have this block with calling it marriage. I think because to me marriage is more about the religious part then the federal/state benefits part. When I got married I stood in front of God and since in my religion homosexuality is considered a sin I don't think I it should be called marriage. Civil Unions are fine with me. Now I want to clarify before I get jumped on. I personally have no problem with who anyone sleeps with, keep it in your bedroom and we will be just fine that goes for hetro couples also. I don't need or want to see a couple of any kind suckin face in front of me or my kids. I don't want to have to explain to my 2 year old why two men are kissing. Will I explain it to them? Sure when I think they are ready.

 

[Just Me 2]

actually there are states, i believe in the bible belt, where anal sex is against the law to discriminate against homosexuals

oh yeah, and if there is a god
he is an absentee slum lord unworthy of worship

This is incorrect. Most sodomy laws have been in effect for a very long time and had nothing to do the homosexuality. It was considered a form of beastality (sp?) and that is why most of the laws were created.

 

[1069]

This is incorrect. Most sodomy laws have been in effect for a very long time and had nothing to do the homosexuality. It was considered a form of beastality (sp?) and that is why most of the laws were created.

A form of bestiality? Seriously??
Did they confuse the two different definitions of the word "a$s", or what?

 

[Just Me 2]

A form of bestiality? Seriously??
Did they confuse the two different definitions of the word "a$s", or what?

:rofl No I'm serious but hey now that I think about it.......:shock:

 

[Kelzie]

There are quite a few churches that believe homosexual unions to be just as sacred as heterosexual. Are you people saying their religion is somehow less valid than yours.

 

[PolySciGuy]

actually there are states, i believe in the bible belt, where anal sex is against the law to discriminate against homosexuals

oh yeah, and if there is a god
he is an absentee slum lord unworthy of worship

Like stated above, these laws were not created to discriminate against gays. There are several laws in several states that are on the books but not enforced. Even if they were created to be discriminatory, who would enforce them, how?

I am sorry you do not believe in God, and it is because of your non belief that I can understand why you are torn in this matter. The reason why , to you, it is only a name

 

[PolySciGuy]

There are quite a few churches that recognize homosexual unions to be just as sacred as heterosexual. Are you people saying their religion is somehow less valid than yours.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific from the get-go, I was only referring to religions where homosexuality is forbidden. I have absolutely no problem with people getting married in a church that allows it and calling it marriage, they just cannot call it a Christian marriage. I do believe that they should receive all the legal benefits and privileges associated with a marriage in my own religion and will edit my original post immediately, thanks for the heads-up!

[edit] new user error :doh not sure how to edit my origional post.... or if it is even possible, but it's the thought that counts right? :mrgreen:

 

[Gardener]

If marriage is a religious institution, then why is it I'm considered married when I received no church ceremony, nor swore anything to God?

What fallaciousness to insist marriage is a religious institution when there are tens of millions of people in this country who are quite definitely married,and whose marriages have nothing to do with any religion.

 

[Navy Pride]

I support civil unions with equal rights as I believe most Americans do but that will never satisfy the "Feel Good" left wing as well as a very few vocal militant gays..

There agenda really has nothing to do with marriage........It is all about stuffing the gay agenda down our throats and forcing us to believe that the gay lifestyle is a suitable substitute for the straight lifestyle which is the norm........

 

[Kelzie]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific from the get-go, I was only referring to religions where homosexuality is forbidden. I have absolutely no problem with people getting married in a church that allows it and calling it marriage, they just cannot call it a Christian marriage. I do believe that they should receive all the legal benefits and privileges associated with a marriage in my own religion and will edit my original post immediately, thanks for the heads-up!

[edit] new user error :doh not sure how to edit my origional post.... or if it is even possible, but it's the thought that counts right? :mrgreen:

I suppose as long as I know what you mean, that's all that counts.

 

[jfuh]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific from the get-go, I was only referring to religions where homosexuality is forbidden. I have absolutely no problem with people getting married in a church that allows it and calling it marriage, they just cannot call it a Christian marriage. I do believe that they should receive all the legal benefits and privileges associated with a marriage in my own religion and will edit my original post immediately, thanks for the heads-up!

[edit] new user error :doh not sure how to edit my origional post.... or if it is even possible, but it's the thought that counts right? :mrgreen:

With respect, your argument then is little else but semantics.
As stated, there's no such thing as separate but equal; the very basis that it need be separate in itself is inequality.

 

[PolySciGuy]

If marriage is a religious institution, then why is it I'm considered married when I received no church ceremony, nor swore anything to God?

What fallaciousness to insist marriage is a religious institution when there are tens of millions of people in this country who are quite definitely married,and whose marriages have nothing to do with any religion.

That is a problem IMO. I think that marriage should be an insuperable part of religion, and I think the state was wrong to not address this sooner. Personally I do not think your marriage as any more/less valid, but it is not, in my mind, "marriage" unless it is religious.

There is a sort-of homey connotation associated with the word marriage, so no one wants to give up their "married" status, but something's gotta give.

I would have no problem with everything being known as marriage (note that this means non-sexual couples too as stated in my earlier post) and a marriage sanctified/preformed by a priest could be known as something else. I dunno what else, possibly "Holy Matrimony" or something to differentiate it.

 

[PolySciGuy]

With respect, your argument then is little else but semantics.
As stated, there's no such thing as separate but equal; the very basis that it need be separate in itself is inequality.

It may be semantics to you, but it is deeply rooted in faith for me. And if it is so mundane and unnecessary for you, why not just make everything not endorsed by a church a civil union. It doesn't seem to be that important to you, but it very important to me and those who share my faith

 

[Kelzie]

It may be semantics to you, but it is deeply rooted in faith for me. And if it is so mundane and unnecessary for you, why not just make everything not endorsed by a church a civil union. It doesn't seem to be that important to you, but it very important to me and those who share my faith

I think at some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that the word "marriage" has involved a great deal in the last hundred years. It's been changing before that. It used to be only between two people of the same religion and same race. It's become secular as the world has grown away from religion. I don't really think you can argue anymore that "religion" is solely the domain of the church.

 

[PolySciGuy]

I think at some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that the word "marriage" has involved a great deal in the last hundred years. It's been changing before that. It used to be only between two people of the same religion and same race. It's become secular as the world has grown away from religion. I don't really think you can argue anymore that "religion" is solely the domain of the church.

I don't think that you can say that religion isn't in the control of the churches, because what would it be under the control of the secular which is almost its opposite. People's view on religion is indeed in the control of the state, but the state only controls the lens to view it through.

I am not interested in what marriage used to mean, I am interested in what it means now. I want to know why people that are married outside of the church want to be called married? I suspect it has something to do with the holy connotation of the word, that would seem to suggest that marriage should only be a religious ideal. If people that are married outside the church only call themselves married for lack of a better term, then I don't see why they wouldn't just accept a civil union