Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   


Therefore, why do gays and lesbians want to get married under a God who has already made clear His position about such a union? (obviously one of opposition to it, plain as day)


If gay people were trying to force religious institutions to marry them despite those institutions objections I would have a huge problem with it.

My understanding is that gay people wish to be married in the eyes of the govt. and to have the same rights afforded to them that heterosexual couples have. The ability to list a gay partner on an insurance policy, to be able to be considered a husband/wife/partner if the other were sick in the hospital etc. I've heard tell of long term gay partners being barred from even visiting since they weren't considered family.

I don't think gay folks would want to force churches that disagreed with homosexuality to marry them. It would be horribly hypocritical.

In my opinion any two consenting adults that wish to enter into marriage (call it what you will, civil union) should be allowed.

We don't live in a country where popular opinion trumps an individuals rights. At least we aren't supposed to. Two people that are in love should be able to have the same benefits of marriage if they make the commitment regardless of sexual orientation.

I don't get how anyone takes issue with this. What if Christianity was deemed immoral by popular opinion? Should Christianity then not be accepted as a legitimate religion?

Do unto others and such. If you think it's immoral that's fine, but you're not God. Let Him judge.




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Yeah, my cousin is a Buddhist and him and his wife got married.
2nd
edit on 26-7-2012 by billy197300 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by billy197300
 


Well, why are gays and lesbians not buddists then? Then they would be afforded religious freedom and the government/state could not oppose a marriage if it is marriage they want.

but if it is rights they want, why are they not simply fighting for all people regardless of religion or creed or lack thereof to have equal rights under the law?

I honestly think more people would be behind that.
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


I do not think its about judging, like I said, most people do not care what others do in the privacy of their own homes so long as they are not hurting another human being.

And I think most of the equal rights issues in this country have been taken care of with the possible exception of tax breaks, anyone can list whomever they please to be their beneficiary on an insurance policy. The patient is who decides who has power of attorney and who visits in the hospitals etc.

I think at this point tax breaks are about it.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


The united states of America was formed on the ideas of equality, and seperation of church and state. How is it logical to directly oppose those ideas by using religion as a basis for an oppressive restriction?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by billy197300
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Just read this about Hindus also: Homosexuality is regarded as one of the possible expressions of human desire and Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful.[49] There are several Hindu temples which have carvings that depict both men and women indulging in homosexual sex.[50]


wikipedia is the last place I would go to learn about gay issues
my understanding is that Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality but they don' explicitly approve either
its just not an issue addressed in Hindu texts



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by polarwarrior
 


All I can see under the law is tax breaks, the law already affords rights of the patients to decide who visits and who can hold power of attorney etc in hospitalization and death cases.... and life insurance anyone can be your beneficiary that you choose.

so taxes seems to be it, why not fight those laws instead of asking for marriage?
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


Oh I don't know, because it's awful to treat certain people differently based on sexual orientation? There is more to it than that.

Get out of your weird bubble and realize that people want to be treated with equality. It's not just about tax breaks. It's not just financial. In this country, we support equality, or at least we are supposed to. There is that whole separation of church and state... The only thing that seems to bar gays from marriage is church... which sort of goes against what we should all believe in. There was that whole thing about pursuit of happiness too. I could go on.

Is it really going to hurt you in any way having the gay guys down the street get married? They're already having sex, already living together, already gay... They wouldn't and shouldn't force a church to marry them. Grow up.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


I think its a very common misconception to think that all opposition to gay marriage stems from religious origins
its not just religion on the way between gays and gay marriage, its a big portion of the resistance but its not only religion.
pro gays have to understand that not all anti gays are religious fanatics



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 


You want to sleep with your dog? A Donkey? A Hyena? A Goat?

Go ahead, we "homos" have no problem with your sexual freakishness!



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


But marriage is a religious institution.

How is it discriminatory to say people cannot walk into my religion and try to change the definition of religious laws?

If people are equal under the law, then all people should be equal, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation etc. And this is what should be fought for! By everyone who believes in the constitution.

But why do they want to change peoples religious beliefs by redefining a religious institution and contract?


They are not asking for their own religious freedom..... they are asking to have the right to change religious beliefs that they do not even believe in
edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


What is it then? Why do these people feel it's right to oppose two very important ideas that our nation was founded on? Are they fascist neo-nazi supporters or something? If that's the case then I have a good idea of where they need to go....


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Marriage is a religious institution.


I understand that, to you, marriage has a religious meaning. I support your freedom of religion, and therefore support your choice that your marriage be a religious institution.

My husband and I don't have religion as part of our lives. Our marriage is not religious in the least, We were not married "before God" or anything like that. There were no religious words spoken when we got married. Religion isn't a required component of marriage. It's an option.


You and I do have one thing in common, however. To be legally married, we have to get a marriage license from the state and sign the legal contract with the state. God and religion are an "addition" to the legal, state contract.

So, your premise that marriage MUST be a religious institution is false. Marriage is a state contract. Some people add a religious component and others do not. If people want religion as part of their marriage, it's none of my business. If they don't, it's none of yours.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Its funny that the church seems to have no problem with people like brittany spears getting married and divorced within 72hrs - somehow that's not insulting to the sanctity of marriage, but two people who are in love with each other and happen to be of the same sex are somehow deemed to be trying to rain on your parade?

I would argue that its nothing to do with the church, its about legal rights and being seen as married in the eyes of the govt. Trouble is that Christians are under the impression that they "own" the rights to marriage, when really all you own is a building and a ceremony.

Preach on a hill i say.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiser3
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 


You want to sleep with your dog? A Donkey? A Hyena? A Goat?

Go ahead, we "homos" have no problem with your sexual freakishness!


Don't twist my words around, it makes you look foolish.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 


You were the one who brought up Bestiality, I thought this thread was about gays!
edit on 26/7/12 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 





But marriage is a religious institution.


So should straight Atheists be barred from marriage? This is not about marriage in a church, it's marriage in the eyes of the govt. The gays don't want to force your church to marry them, they want to be married in the eyes of the law.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
For the record, I'm gay and I have absolutely no interest in marriage (from a religious point of view), but I would like to have the same legal rights as straight couples.

Marriage is a widely recognised LEGAL relationship (in Australian law, marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one) whereas the rights given to de facto relationships are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other countries.

In other words, gay people aren't calling for marriage equality so that they can 'erode the foundation of religion' or start packing out your churches, corrupting your sermons and the like. We just want the same legal rights as everybody else.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


But marriage has never been a state contract, it has always been a religious contract that the state recognises for legal purposes under freedom of religion because it is also a contractual agreement.

If two people do not believe in God, why marry? Why not just draw up a legal contract recognisable by the state which defines the terms?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


I can understand were the religious people are coming from being antigay if their religion says it's wrong. But, if not for religious reasons why on earth would someone even care if someone else is gay or not? I don't really get it.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Marriage is a religious institution.


Religion isn't a required component of marriage. It's an option.




The beauty of faith is that it is an option at every little aspect.

But dying is never an option.





So, your premise that marriage MUST be a religious institution is false. Marriage is a state contract. Some people add a religious component and others do not. If people want religion as part of their marriage, it's none of my business. If they don't, it's none of yours


True.

But I think it can be lesser than a contract. Like in nature, there is no contract between male and female.

It is like dancing , loving , kissing , .. .. ... , goodbye.

That is how it can be for humans ,too.

So why bothering writing contracts ?
edit on 26-7-2012 by mideast because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join