Since this is the place for friendly discussion of hot topics civilly. I figure I should bring the gay debate in it's totality here and get reasoned and real input without all the emotional bashing from either side.
OK first I want to ask some questions and we can go from there.
I have for the most part supported the rights of gay men and women outside of redefining marriage.
I understand and support gay couples having all the legal benefits of marriage. I do not support it being called a marriage as morally to me alone it is not.
Why does me supporting and standing by my ethics seem to be so wrong?
My argument is purely semantic in nature, so it is not really all that important. I do not bash or discriminate against gays. I treat them no different than anyone else, but two men or woman do not make a marriage, a union of sorts yes, but not a marriage. Even though I explain this in great detail and why, I am still called homphobe and told that I hate gays?
Chime in and really let me know how you feel.
I really want to know.
Why did Rosa Parks want to sit in the front of the bus?
When you say you support gay couples to have all the same legal benefits that a married couple have, then you are basically supporting SSM. Because legally, forget what you think about it socially, or religiously, that is SSM. And legally, there is no reason to separate the two unions. It would be redundant.
No. I do not support gay marriage. I support civil unions. morally and spiritually, they are not the same. I see marriage as a religious institution, not a secular one.
And if these civil unions have the same legal benefits as marriage, then it is marriage, secularly.
And there is no reason to divide the two by a word. Marriage you get from the state is a secular one, that is the one LGBT Americans are fighting for.
If I wanted a religious marriage, I could do that no problem. It wouldn't be hard to find a church that would do it, and support it. There is no reason to fight for that, but there is a reason to fight for secular marriage, that is what is happening.
No. It would be a civil Union as I said. If you want to call it that, I have no problem.
And as long as they fight to redefine what a marriage is, I cannot in good conscience support it. If they want broader support, call it something other than a marriage.
And that is fine. Just don't expect Christians to support it on any large scale.
If it is nothing more than a legal contract with all the same benefits as marriage then why would the state make another contract?
I know this is your religious belief, but we are talking about secular marriage here, and it is different than religious marriage. The only way to keep the word marriage from being anything other than a religious institution, you would have to take it out of government. The way marriage is now, to the government marriage is nothing but a secular institution.
I don't, and I have the right to pick what churches I attend.
I would be very pleased if they did that. Then gay couples and heterosexual couples would get married for the right reasons and not for financial gain and benefits etc.
The problem here is I know eventually gay marriage will be legal. Maybe not in my life time, but it will happen. The writing is on the wall. But it means for me on more immoral sin added to a long list of things destroying our society.
This is not the fault of the gays who want it. If they were married by churches who support it, I would have no issue as it would not be an endorsement of immorality by the state. We have to much immorality endorsed by the state already.
You certainly do. Be true to yourself.
The thing is immorality is subjective, and making laws based on morality isn't very reliable. Especially in things that don't hurt anybody. Laws should be based on protecting the freedom of the citizen, and things that hold a specific state interest.
And I hope SSM is a reality by the time I am ready to get married, I wouldn't want my future kids to suffer, because me, and my wife couldn't have all the same benefits, given to married couples. And I plan on having a religious ceremony no matter what.
I will, and you do the same.
Oh I agree, but cant really comply. I am first and foremost loyal to my God and family, then almost as an afterthought my country. I want a secular government and appreciate it, but I must follow my own moral code even in matters of state.
Well good luck to you then.
You know? you are all right for a liberal gay person.:lol:
No. I do not support gay marriage. I support civil unions. morally and spiritually, they are not the same. I see marriage as a religious institution, not a secular one.
Since this is the place for friendly discussion of hot topics civilly. I figure I should bring the gay debate in it's totality here and get reasoned and real input without all the emotional bashing from either side.
OK first I want to ask some questions and we can go from there.
I have for the most part supported the rights of gay men and women outside of redefining marriage.
I understand and support gay couples having all the legal benefits of marriage. I do not support it being called a marriage as morally to me alone it is not.
Why does me supporting and standing by my ethics seem to be so wrong?
My argument is purely semantic in nature, so it is not really all that important. I do not bash or discriminate against gays. I treat them no different than anyone else, but two men or woman do not make a marriage, a union of sorts yes, but not a marriage. Even though I explain this in great detail and why, I am still called homphobe and told that I hate gays?
Chime in and really let me know how you feel.
I really want to know.
Let me ask you chocolate rev, what if another religion, say a Buddhist sect called joining two women or men together a "marriage" would you take issue? See my position is similar to yours, Like others I view a marriage as between a man and a woman, but it is not my place to tell someone else that what they have is not a "marriage", nor is it the governments business telling two people they can not do certain things because it is not a "marriage".....
I for one have no problem with wiley mans wacky church of the sand god marriages a "marriage", what I would have a problem with would be the state dictating to catholics or protestants that they must marry two men, two women, or a goat and a bicycle as it affects me not. It's a label, one that unless I am being forced to accept that label as I see it in my own spiritual world, I have no issue with.
If a church does so, it's OK. The difference is it is not the US government legitimizing the gay lifestyle as normal, it's not.
There is nothing wrong with supporting and standing by your ethics. Where people take exception is that you are doing so in a way that impacts others. The difference is what you and your church call the union, and what the government calls the union.
It would not be the government saying it is normal, it would be the government saying it is acceptable.
Question to people against SSM: How would allowing SSM harm you, or your marriage in any way?
It would harm my future marriage in that it would be considered morally equal to a homosexual union. Does it necessarily matter if we are physically harmed or harmed in any other way? I can't support something I believe to not be marriage. I have no problem with civil unions or letting homosexuals serve openly in the military. I do have a problem when it comes to redefining marriage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?