My Opinion on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[Tymbo]

You people telling me that Gay Marriage isn't right are discriminating. That's just plain ignorant; unless the whole gay population has done something bad to you I just don't understand why you are giving them such a hard time. I wrote a persuasive speech about gay marriage about a year ago and I saved it, just imagine me saying it:

They are people too! Gay marriage was a tremendous issue in this last presidential election and the discrimination of gays has been an issue for as long as I can remember. Marriage, being such an important step in a person’s life is being denied to somebody because they are “abnormal” to the majority of people. The benefits of being married are endless; how would you feel if say, you were not allowed to be baptized because you had brown eyes? You wouldn’t be too happy about that. That is exactly how the whole gay population in the world feels.
They are people too! Gay marriage was a tremendous issue in this last presidential election and the discrimination of gays has been an issue for as long as I can remember. Marriage, being such an important step in a person’s life is being denied to somebody because they are “abnormal” to the majority of people. The benefits of being married are endless; how would you feel if say, you were not allowed to be baptized because you had brown eyes? You wouldn’t be too happy about that. That is exactly how the whole gay population in the world feels.
Being a “straight” male myself I know that this issue is awkwardly discussed, but it needs to be said. Preventing two people of same sex marriage is preposterous when you think about it; like I said before how would you feel if you were denied a certain privilege as big as marriage? The term “Human Rights” comes up, all men shall be treated equal, but gays may not marry. Unbelievable. I know that there are many very convincing documents, people, and things that tell us that it is not right for two people of the same gender to get married, such as the Bible. A lot of time has gone by since the Bible was written and with time comes change, we cannot keep abiding by all of the same laws that our for-fathers believed. I’m not saying by any means that everybody has to start praising and making friends with people that are different from us I’m just saying we need to be logical about this. Equality is the key, treating everybody like they are at the same level. Equality can be taken a lot of different ways, I mean some people don’t deserve equal respect as you would give everybody else, but I’m just saying let’s not go out of our way to make sure that they don’t have the same privileges that we do for no reason. By discriminating, and I’m not just talking about the discrimination of the gay population, we are losing our unity and we are no longer a whole.
Why do people discriminate? Because they don’t like to accept things that are not normal to them. I understand that something that is so different to our life style is hard to accept but that’s just life. Life is all around us and we should embrace it, not turn our cheek to it.
You ask me what are the solutions to this problem? Well there are none that would just flip the switch to no discrimination, but there are things that could, in time, solve this seemingly never ending problem. Opening your mind to the world around you would be one, trust me you will learn some very valuable things. Maybe someday discrimination will be extinct, maybe someday we will be fully united as a people but much work is still needed. Giving two people of the same gender the right to get married would be a great start to this journey to unity.
Most people in our society don’t realize what this issue is doing to the world. Ruining it, that’s what it’s doing! Equality is not impossible, but it can be made impossible if we continue to discriminate and teach our kids to discriminate.

I don't know about you but it's offensive when people say, "That's gay" since I have some friends that are gay. I have to go now. Pz

 

[dontbanurse]

Nice speech. Where did you have to give it?

 

[V.I. Lenin]

No you don't understand, we must protect the sanctity of marriage! Gay marriage would ruin it! What with those precious shows like "Married by America" and "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance", we must protect the SANCTITY of this wonderful institution! Didn't you know? America is a theocracy! The Bible says it's bad, therefore so does America. Didn't you read the Bible of Rights, or the United Biblical States Constitution? Haha...ok enough sarcasm. Honestly, it's just conservatives defying other peoples liberties because they think they're righteous and defending america, but the second a liberal does something against them they "hurt america"!

 

[Arch Enemy]

agreed

honestly what is two gays being married going to do to you? If it's the scary ideals that you'll have to see them kiss and hold hands then you're automatically out of luck.. they'd do it even if they couldn't get married and the conservatives aren't going to start demanding a law stating that gay relationships are illegal... are they?

 

[Rev.]

Hi Timmy,

You'll have to pardon me as I learn my way around posting on forums like this one.

I read your speech and found it to be emotional and passionate. But that's really all it was...emotion. How do you substantiate your arguement that "the whole gay population of the world" feels discriminated against because they can't get married? You are taking something you think must be true and asserting that it is fact. "Preventing two people of the same sex marriage is preposterous when you think about it..." Why exactly?

And what is the real issue with gay marriage anyway? Is it that people should not be allowed to discriminate who can get married and who cannot? But we do it all the time...only people of a certain age may marry. Only people who are not close relatives may marry. Only people who are not already married to somebody else may marry. There *are* established limits to marriage as it is, so it would be tough to prove that homosexuals are discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation.

The thing is, marriage is a religious institution, established by God. Therefore, God should get to decide who gets married. If the state wants to establish a "civil union" and allow people of the same gender to unite legally in that manner so that they may enjoy tax benefits and what have you, that is the business of the state. I believe the real reason gays are fighting for the right to *marry* is because it's a way to "force" God into blessing them.

You asked, "Why do people discriminate?" You suggest that it's because people don't want to accept anything thatis not normal to them. I suggest that people discriminate because life without discrimination is impossible. Every time you choose one thing, you reject another. And that is discrimination, plain and simple. If you choose in favor of marriage being open to anyone who cares to partake, you reject marriage as being unique and sacred. And that's discrimination.

Who will win? I suspect it will be the people who can shout the loudest.

 

[Schweddy]

First of all, Welcome to Debate Politics! :smile:

I am completely on your side, but wanted to point out a few things.

The thing is, marriage is a religious institution, established by God. Therefore, God should get to decide who gets married. If the state wants to establish a "civil union" and allow people of the same gender to unite legally in that manner so that they may enjoy tax benefits and what have you, that is the business of the state. I believe the real reason gays are fighting for the right to *marry* is because it's a way to "force" God into blessing them.

You had me in your court until this paragraph. Marriage is NOT instituted by God, but it is instituted by the state and the church blesses it. (legally) Some states allow the marriage transaction to be held by a member of the cloth. The church has it's own definition of marriage, which legally holds no water in the courts. If it did, gay churches would be having marriage ceremonies (legally) as we speak.

Who will win? I suspect it will be the people who can shout the loudest.

Your right, but unfortunatly it's not us conservatives.
Because when we do scream about it, activist judges take it away and our will is broken.

You asked, "Why do people discriminate?" You suggest that it's because people don't want to accept anything thatis not normal to them. I suggest that people discriminate because life without discrimination is impossible. Every time you choose one thing, you reject another. And that is discrimination, plain and simple. If you choose in favor of marriage being open to anyone who cares to partake, you reject marriage as being unique and sacred. And that's discrimination.

Absolutely! !
:bravo:

 

[ShamMol]

Two things vauge, and I really don't want to linger in this topic, so it will be short and sweet. 1.) conservatives shout the loudest right now, we shall see about later(see terri). and 2.) agree with legality on marriage, i was about to do a rant, but you took care of that for me.

 

[Rev.]

You had me in your court until this paragraph. Marriage is NOT instituted by God, but it is instituted by the state and the church blesses it. (legally) Some states allow the marriage transaction to be held by a member of the cloth. The church has it's own definition of marriage, which legally holds no water in the courts. If it did, gay churches would be having marriage ceremonies (legally) as we speak.

Hmmmmm...I suppose some distinctions need to be made here.

1)Marriage IS instituted by God. I just performed a wedding this past weekend. The couple wanted a "traditional" wedding...none of the extra music and stuff. The opening words of the ceremony are "Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and these witnesses to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God, and signifying unto us the mystical union which exists between Christ and His Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with His presence in Cana of Galilee..."

2)"Church" can mean "Body of Christ" OR "denomination that meets in that building." I know that there are several "denominations that meet in that building" who would loves to solemnize marriage" but the "Body of Christ" as a whole believes that is abhorant. In fact, the "Body of Christ" would questions whether or not any "denominations that meet in that building" are actually part of the "Body of Christ."

God had a lot of things in mind when he established marriage, therefore the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman needs to be respected.
As for those who wish to have committed relationships outside of marriage, I really don't have much objection to laws that would protect their financial interests (do common-law male/female couples have that protection?), though it would concern me that a promiscuous person could wreak havoc with some company's employee insurance plan. But I guess that's none of my business.

Rev.

 

[Schweddy]

"Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and these witnesses to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony; which is an honorable estate, instituted of God, and signifying unto us the mystical union which exists between Christ and His Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with His presence in Cana of Galilee..."

Those words do not have to be spoken by a judge to a couple in order to be married. That was my original point. Though in my opinion indeed they should always be. Again, this is the legal term of marriage not one that us Christians hold dear. In some states, mearly living together for a set time establishes the marriage.

About the church, again your definition is more clear to me because I believe exactly your point. Protestants believe they have a direct personal line to the almighty. Catholics believe the same, but that line is through the buildings or persons that have been blessed with a credo to have such as blessing. Therefore I stated that the 'church' has it's own definition.

God had a lot of things in mind when he established marriage, therefore the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman needs to be respected.

When did God create the marriage ceremony that we observe today? It is my understanding that intercourse is the conception of marriage and that marriage ceremony is truely for the community to acknowlege that bond between a man and a woman. That ceremony is not required for God to acknowledge the bond. The church, again depending on your definition, may require it for one to be apart of the worship services.

I am very much against gay marriage. Many excellent arguements have been presented in this forum which have altered my perception of marriage itself. Perhaps a man of the cloth can lead me in the correct direction. That is the reason for this response.

 

[shuamort]

Hmmmmm...I suppose some distinctions need to be made here.

1)Marriage IS instituted by God.

So if two buddhists want to get married, and since buddhists don't believe in any god, they can't get married. Is that what you're implying? That for a marriage to be sacrosanct or even for it to just exist, it has to be in front of a Christian God?

 

[carolyn-]

So if two buddhists want to get married, and since buddhists don't believe in any god, they can't get married. Is that what you're implying? That for a marriage to be sacrosanct or even for it to just exist, it has to be in front of a Christian God?

1.) SOME Buddhist do believe in God.. their own God, such as God of Wealth.. and all the other God that would protect them. Simply, Buddhism believes in many different God, but seek the teaching of Buddha.

2.) The very basic of "instituted by God" does not mean that it has to be right in front of a Christian God. 'instituted' simply means initiated, or to begin by, or with. and that I agree very much to Rev that Marriage was and still is instituted by God. That God created man and woman, that God made them together through marriage, and marriage through what we practice today.

3.) Gay marriages are still not being accepted because by nature they are 'playing' God.. (as in going against human nature.)We must like what the previous few post say, "protect the sanctity of marriages" and the fact that marriage is a legal union of a man and woman shows that it is internationally accepted as that way. Seldom of man and man or woman with woman. We were born with parents that are of different gender. What would the children of the future feel if they realize that every other parent of the other school children are of different gender and both his/her parents are of the same gender? Wouldn't there be an extreme case of discrimination for that poor child? "Oooh your mom and dad are male. Oooh your mom is a male. Oooh you got no mom, you got 2 daddy.." I feel for the kid, won't you?

:3oops: Pardon me, this is my first post. No offence to anyone..

 

[shuamort]

1.) SOME Buddhist do believe in God.. their own God, such as God of Wealth.. and all the other God that would protect them. Simply, Buddhism believes in many different God, but seek the teaching of Buddha.

The vast majority of Buddhists are atheist though. Buddhism does not worship a god although some of its adherents might. Just as some Christians may have healing crystals even though it's not part of their religion's doctrine.

2.) The very basic of "instituted by God" does not mean that it has to be right in front of a Christian God. 'instituted' simply means initiated, or to begin by, or with. and that I agree very much to Rev that Marriage was and still is instituted by God. That God created man and woman, that God made them together through marriage, and marriage through what we practice today.

And of course, that's your belief and you're welcome to it. The problem is when legislation is created that only reflects that belief and not the diversity of beliefs out there.

3.) Gay marriages are still not being accepted because by nature they are 'playing' God.. (as in going against human nature.)

Umm, no. Human nature is diverse and homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time.

We must like what the previous few post say, "protect the sanctity of marriages" and the fact that marriage is a legal union of a man and woman shows that it is internationally accepted as that way.

Yes, marriage is internationally accepted as a union between man and woman, man and woman and woman and woman and woman (polygamy has been around quite a long time) and marriage between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. If you're sincere about protecting the "sanctity of marriage", why not spend more time making divorce illegal instead of marriage legal?

Seldom of man and man or woman with woman. We were born with parents that are of different gender. What would the children of the future feel if they realize that every other parent of the other school children are of different gender and both his/her parents are of the same gender? Wouldn't there be an extreme case of discrimination for that poor child? "Oooh your mom and dad are male. Oooh your mom is a male. Oooh you got no mom, you got 2 daddy.." I feel for the kid, won't you?

Haven't the people born out of two races faced equal discrimination? Children that have a black mom and a white dad been teased? Should we legislate based on the possibility that some bigoted person might not accept them? That seems backwards to me.

:3oops: Pardon me, this is my first post. No offence to anyone..

:wcm to Debate Politics! Feel free to give us your opinions on thoughts!

 

[carolyn-]

Haven't the people born out of two races faced equal discrimination? Children that have a black mom and a white dad been teased? Should we legislate based on the possibility that some bigoted person might not accept them? That seems backwards to me.

Should we allow for more discrimination to occur? children with black mom and white dad is enough. I don't think people can take it if there were a discrimination of parents with male and female, and parents that are just male and male.

Of course we should not legislate based on a certain viewpoint, of course we weigh the pros and cons. So which do you see more?

 

[Schweddy]

:wcm to Debate Politics.

Of course we should not legislate based on a certain viewpoint, of course we weigh the pros and cons. So which do you see more?

I think that is the true issue here. Who's view is more correct?

Do we look at the intension of original authors of the Constitution or a constitution that has 'evolved'?

 

[Rev.]

When did God create the marriage ceremony that we observe today? It is my understanding that intercourse is the conception of marriage and that marriage ceremony is truely for the community to acknowlege that bond between a man and a woman. That ceremony is not required for God to acknowledge the bond. The church, again depending on your definition, may require it for one to be apart of the worship services.

God didn't create the marriage ceremony. The ceremony is according to cultures and traditions.

Genesis 2:24 says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." This follows the creation of the woman Eve. God had created man in his image, AND (it is important to note) had fellowship with him. But even though God had fellowship with the man, He noted "It is not good for man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him" (Gen 3:18 ) So,God created animals and brought them to the man, who named them. BUT, there wasn't a suitable helper for Adam. So God created Eve 1)to be a helper 2)because it was not good for man to be alone. And because woman was created from man, man unites with his wife and they become one flesh.

Jesus confirms this teaching in Matthew 19. The Pharisees came and asked Jesus questions about divorce. The laws regarding marriage (which had come about through tradition, not God) allowed divorce for any and every reason. Jesus said, "Haven't you read that in the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not seperate." (v. 4- 6 )

A couple verses later, Jesus said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." (v. 8 )

The marriage ceremony itself formalizes the covenant between the man and the woman. The reason why marriage is a living illustration of the relationship between Christ and the Church is because the covenant relationship between a man and his wife parallels the covenant established between God and man. You should note that the Old Testament is called "The Old Covenant" and the New Testament is called the "New Covenant."

A covenant is an all-encompassing agreement between two parties that involves several steps. It was an agreement made publicly, usually in an open field before a crowd of witnesses. There is an exchange of robes, belts, and weapons. Then there is a sacrifice, which is cut ("covenant" comes from the Hebrew root for "cut.") The two parties walk through the middle of the cut animal sacrifice. A mark is made on the body of the covenant-makers and their blood is mingled (forerunner of the modern "handshake"). There is a pronouncement of blessings and curses, a covenant meal, and the exchange of names. Now this covenant agreement can be between a man and woman for the purpose of marriage, between a slave and his master, or between two men (as in the case of David and Jonathan of the Bible).

The ceremony isn't necessary for God to acknowledge to bond, neither is God's blessing required for the making of the covenant agreement (read here "civil union"). At issue for the conservative Christian is the idea that homosexuals are seeking the "blessing" of marriage--God's "rubber stamp" if you will. They already create unions and they do want MORE than civil rights. They want MARRIAGE...the original plan, complete with "what God has joined together." They want God to tell them they are okay and they are MAD because He hasn't. And that makes us Christians "Narrow-minded bigots."

I am very much against gay marriage. Many excellent arguements have been presented in this forum which have altered my perception of marriage itself. Perhaps a man of the cloth can lead me in the correct direction. That is the reason for this response.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. But for the sake of being forthcoming: I have been preaching for 12 years, can marry, baptise and administer communion, have one more year to serve as a pastor before I can be ordained...but I am a woman. I hope that won't stand in the way of future discussion.

 

[Rev.]

So if two buddhists want to get married, and since buddhists don't believe in any god, they can't get married. Is that what you're implying? That for a marriage to be sacrosanct or even for it to just exist, it has to be in front of a Christian God?

Well, I am not Buddhist, so I wouldn't presume to be able to speak on their behalf. I do understand that their weddings are full of symbolism that is important to them for its historical and cultural meaning. I would never say they couldn't be "married" (as they understand it), but I would say that it isn't a true marriage as understood by Christians.

Marriages can legally exist outside of God's blessing. No arguement there.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Sanctity of marriage?

Brittney Spears was married for what 8 hours?

Jlo has been married like 40 times...?

43% of first marriages end within 15 years.

1 in 12 marriages end in 2 years.

What sanctity are we talking about again?

 

[Rev.]

And of course, that's your belief and you're welcome to it. The problem is when legislation is created that only reflects that belief and not the diversity of beliefs out there.

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought legislation was supposed to reflect the majority opinion, not the diverse opinions. And if the majority of voters believe marriage should be restricted to one man one woman, why is there such an issue?

 

[ShamMol]

Well, I am not Buddhist, so I wouldn't presume to be able to speak on their behalf. I do understand that their weddings are full of symbolism that is important to them for its historical and cultural meaning. I would never say they couldn't be "married" (as they understand it), but I would say that it isn't a true marriage as understood by Christians.

Marriages can legally exist outside of God's blessing. No arguement there.

So those heathens can have a marriage, it just isn't the correct one? The only correct one is the Christian one? Their marriage is a beautiful ceremony if you ever have a chance to see it and shows the love and devotion each have for each other. You state that their marriage is how they understand it. But the problem with that is that marriage wasn't even created by Christians. It is based way back on the Old Test. Now, Rev, who wrote that? Are they wrong too?

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought legislation was supposed to reflect the majority opinion, not the diverse opinions. And if the majority of voters believe marriage should be restricted to one man one woman, why is there such an issue?

I will pardon your ignorance because this country is based upon the principle of rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority. Now, that, a guiding principle of this country would be...worthless?

 

[Rev.]

But the problem with that is that marriage wasn't even created by Christians. It is based way back on the Old Test. Now, Rev, who wrote that? Are they wrong too?

I believe I answered this question in post #15.

I will pardon your ignorance because this country is based upon the principle of rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority. Now, that, a guiding principle of this country would be...worthless?

"Rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority" is in the Constitution?

 

[shuamort]

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought legislation was supposed to reflect the majority opinion, not the diverse opinions. And if the majority of voters believe marriage should be restricted to one man one woman, why is there such an issue?

The majority of voters believed one man one vote less than 100 years ago in this country. Suffrage did not happen for women until 1920 on a federal level. Or for blacks, suffrage in the south was not in legal affect until 1965. An old quote about issues like this goes like this "democracy should be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". The founding fathers understood that for a government to be fair, direct democracy would never work. The US works under the auspices of a constitutional republic. The constitution ensures rights for all people and not just the whim of the majority. What if the majority of the citizens decide that religion is poisonous to culture and should be outlawed, why should there be an issue if 51% percent of the people think that?

 

[shuamort]

The ceremony isn't necessary for God to acknowledge to bond, neither is God's blessing required for the making of the covenant agreement (read here "civil union"). At issue for the conservative Christian is the idea that homosexuals are seeking the "blessing" of marriage--God's "rubber stamp" if you will. They already create unions and they do want MORE than civil rights. They want MARRIAGE...the original plan, complete with "what God has joined together." They want God to tell them they are okay and they are MAD because He hasn't. And that makes us Christians "Narrow-minded bigots."

Here's the static. Marriage is a civil issue as it pertains to the government. The homosexuals are not protesting to the churches for marriages to be legalized, they are in fact, going to the government. Since the government allows marriage between people of faith, any faith, or no faith whatsoever, religion is a non-factor when it comes to marriage as recognized by the government. A church can not be legally forced to marry homosexuals any more than the catholic church can be forced to marry divorcees.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. But for the sake of being forthcoming: I have been preaching for 12 years, can marry, baptise and administer communion, have one more year to serve as a pastor before I can be ordained...but I am a woman. I hope that won't stand in the way of future discussion.

I'm not sure why your gender or sex should be relevent to the discussion any more than I think a person's sex or gender should prevent them from marrying the consenting adult that they love.

 

[V.I. Lenin]

The majority of voters believed one man one vote less than 100 years ago in this country. Suffrage did not happen for women until 1920 on a federal level. Or for blacks, suffrage in the south was not in legal affect until 1965. An old quote about issues like this goes like this "democracy should be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". The founding fathers understood that for a government to be fair, direct democracy would never work. The US works under the auspices of a constitutional republic. The constitution ensures rights for all people and not just the whim of the majority. What if the majority of the citizens decide that religion is poisonous to culture and should be outlawed, why should there be an issue if 51% percent of the people think that?

Religion is the opium of the masses, my friend :mrgreen:

I kid. I do see what you say, but this can only be used in extreme cases, only when the rights of a miniority as a whole are being violated. And i believe the rights of gays are being violated now...but i have an itching feeling this administration won't do very much to change this.

 

[ShamMol]

I believe I answered this question in post #15.
"Rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority" is in the Constitution?

Okidoki...onto post #15...I see no difference between the two covenants BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME. Thank you for that post. It started in Genesis...jews...jesus said it was good...christians. I see completely how it was only right when the Christian god said it is.

I can't say it any better than shuamort did, so I will just elaborate. Just because it isn't in the Constitution does not make it wrong. You are shocked, I know. The purpose of democracy is to have all parts working together to form a harmonious (sounds crock-of-sh*tty right now doesn't it) group that works for the betterment of the people living there. "The constitution ensures rights for all people and not just the whim of the majority." Perfect. If it hurts one group...well, that is where the 14th Amm. comes into play.

 

[Rev.]

What if the majority of the citizens decide that religion is poisonous to culture and should be outlawed, why should there be an issue if 51% percent of the people think that?

This is all done but the voting.