Yes, it is a legal matter, not a religious one... The constitution of the United States states Citizens have the right to pursue happiness...
What does not say... Unless your gay...
It's not the government's role to sanction any religious ceremony. The government should only recognize civil unions regardless of the genders involved.
I agree with you Ron If any two people want to be married let them do that at whatever they feel to be a religious hall. The government should only recognize a union of two people as a civil union. Between TWO PEOPLE!!
Are you gay or a liberal? If you're either your opinion doesn't count but we still promise to humor you!
Why must it be either or? Are you saying there are no gay liberals? Was Glen Beck not on today?
I am a straight conservative father of three grandfather of one and no desire to control any aspects of another's life.
I'm a man of my word so here we go: An old woman upset at her husbands funeral complains to the director. "I asked that my husband be burried in a blue suit and this ones brown!" The director says no problem, he yells to his parner Ed, "Ed, change the heads on two and four!"
Citris, you're a girl, right? Well for you to have a valid opinion you need three more girls that think like you.
Ooohhhh, you finally pried that finger outta there! You look much better that way girl.
As to gay marriage, yes I think they should be allowed that. I have many gay and lesbian friends. Too many only think of the sex part of being gay, not the emotional part.
Hell one lesbian I know only wants sex once a month! But she wants someone to love, and be a part of. Marriage is very important to many gays, just like it is to straights.
Perhaps its a silly semantic argument that people shouldn't be concerned with but marriage is a religious ritual. Unfortunately the law gives certain rights to those who have participated in said ritual.
I think it's right and proper for those rights to be accorded to everyone, and a civil union does that. But that isn't a marriage, i.e. it doesn't conform to the basic requirements of this particular religious ritual. So why call it a marriage?
a civil union is effectively a marriage without the religious connotations. i don;t see a problem with that. If both parties involved are religious themselves, then they will understand that their union does not conform to the religious meaning of marriage. If they are not religious why would they care, as long as they are afforded the same legal rights as others who are in a union described as "marriage"?
I have said the very things you just stated in your post and I must have gone round and round with a gay woman in a thread for about an hour about about just this topic.
What it boiled down to and she admitted was that that she wanted the same respect and credibility that any other married person would be afforded. I told her that I did not see that as an option as no government has successfully legislated such an issue. While religionists call it an immoral act and therefore illegal or gays call it predjudice by exclusion an illegal act to legislate the fact remains that our system of separation of church and state is very inflexible to accomodate either.
Sure it has. It was the exact same with interracial marriage, and the government struck down laws when a strong majority of Americans thought interracial marriages were immoral and should be illegal. In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it.
And when you have a religious majority that sees no problem violating the Constitution's equal protection clause, using religious interpretation as its justification, sometimes the judiciary must act. I hope that's the case with the Boies/Olson lawsuit.
I agree that it is unfair that gay couples are held to a religious standard that flails in the face of the separation of church and state but the law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Even if the law can be changed there will be little acceptance by the religionists and a whole new slew of equal gay rights suits will crop up. The law cannot demand acceptance. The respect and credibility will still not be won through the law is all I am trying to say and that is what the gay woman I talked to wanted to achieve as well as her right to marry whom she pleased.
Hey I am on your side but to have the whole shooting match hinge on a word is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That law is about 15 years old, and Obama has pledged to strike it down.
No one is really asking for acceptance by religious groups. We just want them to mind their own business and stop restricting our rights. There are over 1,100 rights that marriage confers. What people think about gay marriages is their personal belief; lots of people think interracial marriage is disgusting but they no longer have the power to have that translate into a restriction on other people's rights.
It's not the word; it's the principle of equality. Make absolutely no mistake: if "civil unions" ever came up for legislative discussion, each and every anti-equality activist would attack it with the same vigor as they do marriage equality. Look at what happened with Proposition 71 in Washington last month.
Again, Wait just one second. interracial marriage is NOT the same as gay marriage. You have equal rights I can't marry anyone of my gender either, You guys want special rights and government promotion. Ethnicity is irreverent to coupling, but gender is essential. There is only one race the human race there are different ethnic groups because of color and cultures, but we are all equally human male and female and can interbreed no problem. Opposition to interracial marriage is without merit men and women are designed for one another. Same sex couple goes against the natural design there fore are harmful. Let me ask you a question Are all kinds of sexual conduct the same? Is sexual conduct ever unhealthy and/or unloving?
This has different connotations with you than the gay woman I discussed this with and her feelings. I hope Obama can answer your request but he has turned to other issues that are more important to him and his agenda.
Maybe the word marriage can be incorporated into gay unions but if I were you I would concentrate on the legal rights and damn the social acceptance.
Can't fault him for making health care reform a priority. We'll see if he makes good on his word on equality, although he's made it clear he will push for civil unions, not marriage equality.
If it were only that simple. You will have plenty of jurisdictions that will feign ignorance or just not accept "this civil union thing" and say that certain things are only entitled to married couples under the law. We've been down the "separate but equal" road in this country; it's a shame we still haven't learned our lesson. Separate is never equal.
Surely respect can be given and credibility in a legal sense regarldess of religious belief. And any spiritual person should be able to understand love between two human beings whatever form iot takes. doesn't make it "right" according to the tenets of a particular belief, but understanding is possible surely.
I agree but when respect is decreed by law it doesn't neccessarily mean it will be given. Credibility in a legal sense can be achieved as well but the whole thing hinged on the acceptance by the religionists on the word marriage as the definition of this acceptance will be very hard for the gays to make happen.
Depends what we mean by respect. If we mean a person will be considered next of kin for example then that's one thing. If we mean that a union will be deemed "acceptable" that's another.
I don't think any religious person could accept a civil union as a marriage, and i don't think they should have to. There is a clear seperattion here between civil and religious. Marriage has and has always been a description of a religious ceremony, which happened to have a certain legal status. Attributing the same legal status on a same sex couple should not and does not require the term marriage. To all intenets and purposes it is not a marriage as this term has religious connotations.
why not TMMason?
what is the difference between civil unions and marriage. why allow one and not the other?
One is a religious union the other secular.
My religion and most do not accept that lifestyle and behaviour.
So out of the same respect they are asking for, I am asking for it to be shown to my religion.
why allow civil unions?
isn't their lifestyle a choice?
But my saviour teaches not to judge.
I tolerate, not accept.
It is not my place to judge anyone, but I don't accept it as morally correct behaviour, and there-fore will not condone it with a religious blessing such as Marriage.
Regardless the de-graded and dis-graced state of Marriage today.
I will not sacrifice it to the a-moral agenda.
No. It's much more fun to judge people and hold oneself loftier than others. Plus, it's really fun to cram religious edicts down peoples' throats through the government that's supposed to be separate from religion. That is so much cooler; and who doesn't love irony?
So, definately no, no equality for gay people. We already went and let those darn women and those darn black people read books and go to school and stuff. If we start letting gays have equality, there won't be anyone left to feel superior too. What then?
They already have equal rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, same as any other person.
And if you don't think so, take it up with the secularisdts and have them give them Civil Unions, (secularized Marriage).
See, the problem with that argument is that you are defining the terms of the "equality." What you are really saying is, "Gays have equal rights to marry the way I - read Christian doctrine - say they have to." That does give them a sort of pseudo-equality of marriage, limited to the choices you define for them, but it does not give them equality of picking a person to be with.
Where your argument just takes a horrific dump on the rhetorical floor is when you examine equality this way. You have claimed for yourself the right to determine what marriage is. You use your holy book as backing to put forth your definition.
So, you want equality, let Gays have the right to declare what marriage is too. THAT is equality. Give equality when it comes to setting rules for marriage. You are establishing the limits of their choices and pretending it's being equal by letting them pick from the once choice you give them just because it's the one you like. "You have a right to believe as I do," is what you are actually saying.
They can, and they can respect my religion at the same time.
It is called, "Civil Unions".
And that would respect ALL religions that I know of that have a doctrine of Marraige.
That is what is so infuriating about some Christians, that self-centered, overbearing grandiosity that somehow places them so central in the universe that when two gay guys tie the knot somewhere in the privacy of their own lives, somehow that translates to an act of disrespect to the Christian. How freaking self-absorbed and egotistical do you have to be to actually think that you have ANYTHING to do with it?
They aren't marrying to spite you. They don't know you, they don't care about you, and they aren't doing anything to your version of Christianity. YOU have NOTHING to do with it. Believe it or not, the world doesn't center around you and your variant of one of thousands of religions. People actually do stuff in their lives just for the sake of themselves, their lives and their religions, and all of it done with no concern for your religion at all.
That doesn't, calling it marriage does.
Calm down please.
How does what someone who has nothing to with you or your religion calling what they do one word or another have anything at all to do with you? That answer merely echoes your last one, which once again places you and your faith at the center of the world and anything people do that you don't agree with becomes an affront.
What if civil servants decided that "Civil Union" was an affront to their way of life? What could they call it then, if that's taken? A Gay-Union? That might offend union workers, or the relatives of people who served the Union in the Civil War. Maybe they could just call it Gay Binding? But then bookbinders and publishers would be offended.
The incapacity of those sharing the belief system you champion to recognize their own self-importance amazes me. What's more amazing is that while you expect people to "respect" your having laid permanent and Divine claim to a word (an English one no less, post-dating the scriptures that folks claim claim it by centuries), you give no thought to the lack of respect being perpetrated on gays by your feeling you get to have a say in what they call their pair-bonding ritual. The ego required for that is truly stupefying.
Shadesbreath, do you believe it is not a lifestyle choice?
Black people are born black, women are born women. Are gay people born gay?
Have you ever met an ex-black? No, but I know many ex gays. Race is not the same as behavior.
Who gives a crap whether they are born gay or just "become" gay as a result of some tragic upbringing, exposure to chemicals, or by some genetic manipulation by aliens. Who gives one rat's ass if it's nature or nurture? THEY ARE GAY now. They exist. They aren't going away. There's shitloads of them, and every one of them is an actual human being who get's ONE life here on Earth for sure. And they would like to live it how they want without a bunch of pushy, self-righteous, holy-book thumping zealots stuffing fat, sanctimonious noses into their lives.
Let them. The modern day marriage is a farce and only a form of control anyway drummed up by an old fuddy duddy in the early church of Europe. Nothing scared or holy about it. I am a believer too. Study history not modern prejudice.
Hey Ralwus, Old Buddy - I would like to see Gays here allowed to marry, if they want to. It is not going to bring the Greek Orthodox church crashing to the ground and would make some of my gay friends very happy.
Personally, like you, I cannot understand why anybody bothers - Greek weddings are very big, very expensive, and usually end up with a huge fight
Hehe - I learned, from bitter experience, that angry Spartan women are not to be messed with
Don't you just love a party with a surprise!
How ya doin' Sufi, so good to see you. Yeah, true love has no boundaries. Let them wed they won't on my belief tread! Happy New year my friend.
Likewise, Ralwus - always good to see you - I have tried to keep up with people on Facebook but I have a slow internet connection that keeps timing out, so I rarely get to stay on there for long.
Have to agree - there is already too much hatred in the world, so if two people can find love, then that is just fine by me
Chronia Polla! (Many Years!)
Sneako - I sure hope that there is no movie - watching myself get beaten up by an little old Greek lady could be embarrassing
Thay have a video of me dancing, somewhere, and that is bad enough!
...and here speaks the eternal lover. Ralwus, you are always a treat and as above - always spot-on!
"Should the government allow same sex marriage?"
The real question is, should they be in the marriage business at all? The answer is no! They should fix potholes and nothing more!
I'd be more afraid of the father being goosed. LOL Either way, he'd get ya plus the whole family.
Marriage connotes a religous union, Civil cannotes a secular.
We, Christianity, do not as a religion of God, set his law aside to please man in his self-indulgences and lapses into immorality.
It is not for any church to condone, what god has forbidden.
Marriage is a holy institution, not Civil, thus the "Civil Union".
If you can support me with a bible notation what you have written you should:
"What god has forbidden"
Clearify man. I don't get the question.
Does the bible speak of marraige?
Marriage reflects the gifting of woman, to man. In a Union to re-produce and bring forth children upon the earth.
Be fruitful and multiply, was the command of God.
Which part do you need me to explain, they cannot do?
God did not give Man, a Man, to be with for confort and companionship, emotional support, and to be a mother of HER and MAN's children.
And we all know they cannot multiply, that is was makes it unnatural.
You can try to normalize it all you want. Both arguments are flawed.
It is an abomination to both Nature, and God.
And I don't change my religion for Man.
Is that your question?
Let the government recognize it, if the people of the united States want it legal and accepted. But that hasn't gone to well for Gays either. The court has had to over-turn the popular vote, to not make it legal, and legalize it against the will of the people.
So I don't think. I am the only one stopping Gays from Marrige. Civil Union they can have, all the benis... thats fair.
Christ tells us, not to judge and hate the person doing the act.
But to hate the act itself.
That means we tolerate their behaviour, we do not accept it.
I think the answer he was looking for I boldened above. Your points are good but are not literal and show interpretation.
I myself am hetero but completely allow for the homosexuals their own beliefs and what they need to work out with God. I am not the judge, God is.
As you may see, there is no question in my statement.
I am a really a naive person. I am totally unaware as to what the issue of Gay marriage really is. Can civil union not address every issue in regards to this being seen by the powers that be making these civil unions equal to but not including being called a marrage? Can anyone explain this in a nut shell.
Or is it all about wanting people to say that this ordained under God???
I have talked with a number of gay people about the differences between having a label like civil union and a marriage attached to their relationship. The concerns are always that the difference in naming them differently would make them separate and therefore not of equal value.
The term marriage carries with it an understanding of tradition and validation through centuries of the words use. On the other hand the label civil union is a new term that conjures up newness and less validation as far as really being joined together. It also allows for speculation as to whether there is a permanance to it.
On the other hand it seems funny that the religious marriages that take place want to have themselves joined to mans law in a sort of validation of Gods law. The two seem desparate to protect their identities similarly but at the same time remain separate.
We can chose to stay with the person we love the most,
That's our real right, no matter religion or politics points of view.
A gay marriage, likely; would be used only as an equality measure in society, and that is the problem. Common people is so locked in their thinkings that they don't see other's happiness.
And for your point: Be fruitful and multiply
If that's your base for living I'll let it be.
But don't ever think that every one has the same expectations and goals, we'd be living in Adam and Eva's paradigm.
This is XXI Century.
I don't recall saying anyone had to agree with me or like it. And God Considers it an abomination, see gen, 12 and 14 I believe I don't usually have to give chapter and verse. But it should be somewhere in there.
The lord comes to visit Abraham on the planes of Mebre, speaks to him of the cry of Sodom rising up in plea to the heavens because of the acts committed there.
Those acts are Clearified in the scene at Sodom. When the neighbors of lot, want to take the men visitors and, "know them", the biblical phrase for Sex.
Pretty clear to me.
It is an abomination in the eyes of God, and Nature.
But I will let them live and act as they want.
But it is not normal, it is unatural, and immoral.
I don't live my life just to multiply.
I'll show you, so can get your conclusions.
I am not trying to be argumentative but do you know where it says in the bible specifically where man is not to be married to man? I know all the sexual arguments but do you know where it is?
Not on any of the first 10 laws imposed to Israel people, The 10 Commandments forbids homosexual behavior, neither Jesus on his predications.
Be fruitful and multiply...
I guess for you a MAN that is happy whit another man can not go to heaven 'cause they can not have children.
Jesus died in vain.
Show me what. I didn't get your Q to begin with, and I answer the one boldened.
Show me I will be happy to look.
lol IDK what your talking about, but thats cool.
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
-- This the only moment in which Jesus refers to Sexual Behavior
Wasn't the idea of seperation of church and state intended more to keep the govt out of religion (Church of England) rather than religion out of government? Just curious.
I don't know which way it was intended but Jefferson remarked "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
People have twisted it against this country. And we see where it is gettin us very soon. I would think.
We're having a two for one sale! Two conversions to the straight way of life for the price of one! Ask about our special "Cry no more" liberal conversions! Remember It's all in your mind and we love you at, "Sneako Conversions"!
Before writing you should know more about bible,
Brother. Jesus never had anything against this behavior.
Why should have we?
I don't remember Jesus kickin it at gay bars in the Bible?
Obviously you need to read more.
Nop, but did he ever judge them? that's the point, you're over the way.
I do not understand why this is even still a topic. It is all symantics...the term "marriage" should just be removed from any legal meaning under law, it should be replaced by some type of legal "union" which would confer the same tax, visitation, insurance benefits etc. for any two people who have entered into such a union. This removes the term entirely, so those opposed are no longer upset by their version of marriage being "perverted" or attacked or whatever their concern is.
Unfortunately, the argument is now more about the extreme far end of each group, with religious groups attacking the morality and the attack on their way of life and the extreme gay rights groups wanting to shove it in face of those same religions groups that they have a gay marriage just like their straight marriage.
It is a peculiar situation as both sides want recognition of the government but neither is willing to accept it on equal terms. A waste of time in my estimation when compared to the wars and global economic debacle going on.
Yeah, kind of like those extreme interracial marriage groups a hundred years ago who wanted to shove it in the face of the 90% of Americans who opposed interracial marriage, that they have a marriage just like others' same-race marriage.
BTW: Americans are becoming more "extreme" (in favor of marriage equality) every year.
Thats because they teach our children against our teachings from the age of six, that it is moral and natural, and everyone should try it.
Just the way teach America sucks and we are all racist, and... well to many BS lies to mention.
So yeah. Just like Hitlers Germany, the Govt. will indoctrinate the youth, and they win.
And for those of you who do not like the Hitler usage, insert Kim Jong Ill and North Korea.
Another generation and we will be a Socailist homosexual nation. lol
Pinkos, so to speak.lololololo
And interracil marriage is nothing like Gay marriage.
Apples and Oranges.
Sorry about the fruity thing there.
Your reply is so full of lies and distortions that I won't bother addressing it. It certainly, though, does show your views towards gay people in a more honest light than your previous posts on the subject, when you pretended to be fair-minded and tolerant.
Wait just one second. Ethnicity is irreverent to coupling, but gender is essential. There is only one race the human race there are different ethnic groups because of color and cultures, but we are all equally human male and female and can interbreed no problem. Opposition to interracial marriage is without merit men and women are designed for one another. Same sex couple goes against the natural design there fore are harmful. Let me ask you a question Are all kinds of sexual conduct the same? Is sexual conduct ever unhealthy and/or unloving?
I started this thread yesterday, and i have enjoyed reading all the opinions.
I think the real question here is, Is Homosexuality a choice or a predetermined condition?
If it is a lifestyle choice, no special rights should be given. If homeosexuality is something that is chosen by an individual, why should others have to give them special rights? It is not the same as being a minority by birth.
If homosexuality is a natural condition, not a choice, all rights should be given.
The question is, is it natural, or a choice?
The simple answer is no it is not a choice as why would anybody subject themselves to the stigma and distain the rest of society puts on them.
Another thing is how would you will yourself to like something that disgusts you? I can't understand how anyone could sell that.
I had someone explain it to me as what flavor of ice cream do you like, vanilla or chocolate? If you make the choice based on what you like then that is what you like. If you make the opposite choice based on what somebody says you should like you will never be satisfied.
i don't think the ice cream analogy is very good. as a child i liked chocolate, but as an adult i prefer vanilla. it's not a choice that comes from genetics, it's only a preference and it's subject to change.
as far as i can tell, some homosexuals also change from straight to gay and back, some are bisexual and then straight. does this mean it is a choice and not a predetermined genetic condition?
The ice cream analogy is still good if you consider that your desires change right along with your lifestyle. The human condition is all about change and how we deal with it. No one can know that they will become anything but what they are through their life experiences until they get there. Predetermination wreaks of fate and then you get into a whole other realm of thinking.
We don't change. There are some, always evangelical Christians it seems, who pretend (or would like to believe) they become straight. Most of the time they end up "backsliding." They are fighting who they are because of the enormous social pressure against being gay in some circles.
I can tell you as a gay person it's not a choice. It is as natural to me as I presume heterosexuality is to you.
But even if it were a choice (rhamson's point is a good one - who in their right mind would choose to be treated like society's garbage?), what difference does it make? Marriage is for two people who love each other, and are committed and mutually dependent on each other. Marriage is not only about procreation, since straight married couples don't/can't always have children.
many people profess the exact opposite as you. it is a fact that some gay people do change. and not always evangelical christians. many straight people become gay, many gay people decide to become straight.
if it is a choice, it makes a huge difference as far as rights go. if you choose a lifestyle no one, especially the government should have to make concessions for you. it was your choice.
you seem to think for you it was not a choice, but others say differently. i don't think being gay makes you an authority on the subject of genetics.
I would suggest that people who change where always going to change. They would be called bi-sexual. If they choose to interact with either one at any given time makes no difference. They are the same person with the same desires. There was a joke many years ago that if you say you are bi-sexual you are just covering up your gay desires.
I guess if you want to get technical about it you could have gay people registering when they were being gay and then they could be afforded all the rights and priveledges due them. If they went straight again then the could declare it and be afforded all the rights and priveledges straight people get. I have an idea lets let them make up their mind and just afford them the same rights we all have.
Studies show you're more likely to born an alcoholic, should we give a baby a beer? No, that's absurd. I wrote on this subject I won't post the link ,but it's titled Evolution vs Homosexuality. It answers all the "arguments” from those who oppose traditional marriage without using the bible because it doesn't have to with religion, but morality. Homosexuals try to force their morality on the world as well those who are pro traditional marriage. Read the hub view the vids it will answers all your concerns on this subject. Bye
Straight people do not become gay. They might come out of the closet, but if they are being honest, they will confess they've always been attracted to the same sex.
"Gay-to-straight conversions" have been debunked by all non-evangelical Christian institutions that have studied it. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Counseling Association have all deemed "conversion therapy" to be useless at best, harmful at worst.
The only concession the government made was to homophobes in the mid-1990s, when it enshrined opposite-sex marriage only into the law (the Defense of Marriage Act). Gay people do not want special rights; we just want to be able to marry the person we love, just as straight people do.
by mr. daydream5 years ago
I know being openly gay, coming out the closet, gay rights etc., seems to be one of the latest fads in today's society. But don't you think at times society as a whole (in particular Hollywood and the music industry...
by Leta S7 years ago
I'm so proud of my adoptive home state (went to college there) of Iowa for lifting the ban on same sex marriage in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.Justices wrote that they had “excluded a historically disfavored...
by sneakorocksolid6 years ago
Leave marraige to churches and make it their ceremony not even a public issue and everyone as a matter of law have a civil union.This was a sugestion made by Livelonger and if I didn't word it right it's because I'm not...
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
What do you wish to share with others about the facts concerning marriage in general. It has a long history. What about marriage interests or benefits YOU?Or is there anything about marriage that irritates you or does...
by Jason Menayan6 years ago
Thousands of gays and lesbians and their supporters are marching in Washington against the two institutions where they are still not equal to heterosexuals: the military and marriage.Obama has pledged to end Don't Ask,...
by theirishobserver.5 years ago
The US president received an enthusiastic reception from gay supporters at a New York fundraiser, but a few dozen gay rights protesters outside the hotel and a handful of hecklers inside the ballroom where he spoke...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.