Gay Marriage is Wrong and I am not a Homophobe

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
the purpose of the ceremony of marriage is for public approval and acknowledgement... in the western world and the language in which everyone is using here it means it is based on a Christian principal.

not just Christianity but the "majority" of society in the western world and world over for that matter not including the Christian/Western world do not want to acknowledge same sex unions.

trying to force others to accept homosexuals perversions is the problem here... keep it out of people living rooms and start a new religion such as atheism and then perform this unholy union under a different banner by calling it something else.




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I don`t care if gay people are allowed to get married.it won`t affect me in any way, it won`t take food off my table, it won`t raise or lower my taxes,it won`t make my life any easier or any harder,so i don`t care what they want to do.

In america married people have the legal right to not testify against their spouse in any legal proceedings both criminal and civil. people who are prohibited from getting married can never be given that right.
i don`t think any government should be in the business of selling rights to it`s citizens or prohibiting some of it`s citizens from ever obtaining certain rights that other citizens have.

Churches are private organizations they don`t have to marry anyone that they don`t want to.The church that my brother in law went to his whole life refused to marry him and his fiance because the church felt that they weren`t compatable and that the marriage wouldn`t last.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
here in the USa, there is the Clause/Amendment: The seperation of church & state
en.wikipedia.org...


which i feel has a bearing on the religious institution (or some would say the 'sacrement') of Marriage.

a civil union is a cop out way of allowing a non-traditional 'Marriage' or living arrangement
the union of same sex partners is a formal way to skirt the issue of giving popular-traditional Religions a say-so in the affairs of the citizenry concerning the legality of 'Marriage'

the legislators are straddling the fence on this issue, by currying the favors of the religious voters by making a difference between a secular 'civil union' and the 'Marriage' union long recognized by the legal governments (states) (federals)
Marriage and all the legal pros-cons attached to it should be allowed between any two persons....without the condemnation by any Religious group/faith...by condeming gay marriage the Religions are forcing their viewpoint on the governmant which is totally against the First Amendment clause about respecting on religion over another or even respecting one religion to be the standard bearer of morality for the whole population of the nation...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
...being gay is a personal life choice...
No, being ignorant is a personal life choice. Hiding behind a Bible is a personal life choice. Being Gay is just that...hard wired that way. The tyranny of the Church is fading, better get used to that.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I for one am against this change, I am not particularly religious nor do I have any problem with homosexual couples, some of my best friends are homosexual. I see this move as taking the rights of one group on society and giving them precedence over another, it is a liberal paradox where by the rights of homosexuals are above that of religious groups.


Religious people have the right to be against gay people, nobody is forcing them to be "ok" with gays, if they don't want to participate in their marriages because they disapprove for whatever reason, they can choose not to.

Religious people are saying that gay people should not have the right to marriage because of THEIR religious beliefs. They are controlling gay people by saying that their beliefs are irrelevant when it's not even their life...


Trampling over religious rights would be FORCING people to marry gays (which I am against, but if they can find someone who is ok with marrying them, why not?)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
Churches are private organizations they don`t have to marry anyone that they don`t want to.The church that my brother in law went to his whole life refused to marry him and his fiance because the church felt that they weren`t compatable and that the marriage wouldn`t last.
Two things...I'd be interested in knowing what form this incompatibility took. Second...once again...Chruches have tax-exempt status, right? As long as they enjoy that little bonus, they are accountable to society at large. If they want to draw a firm line between themselves and the state, well they can damn well pony up.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
the purpose of the ceremony of marriage is for public approval and acknowledgement... in the western world and the language in which everyone is using here it means it is based on a Christian principal.

not just Christianity but the "majority" of society in the western world and world over for that matter not including the Christian/Western world do not want to acknowledge same sex unions.

trying to force others to accept homosexuals perversions is the problem here... keep it out of people living rooms and start a new religion such as atheism and then perform this unholy union under a different banner by calling it something else.
I think that trying to force eveyone to accept the abso perversions of chritianity is the main problem here. Without a book to hide behind, religious homophobes would have to admit that they are nothing but hate filled moronic idiots. and we can't jhave that, when there's a nice comfort blanket to hide your hate behind, can we.


The pervesions of the church are wide spread, infiltrating everyday life for most of us, against our will. talk about forcing it down our throats. Little of what you preach, prehaps, or would that be too obvious?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



I am not particularly religious nor do I have any problem with homosexual couples, some of my best friends are homosexual. I see this move as taking the rights of one group on society and giving them precedence over another, it is a liberal paradox where by the rights of homosexuals are above that of religious groups.


I appreciate these very logical comments, the OP nails the issue.
One group is deeply offended that it can't, the other group is deeply offended when they do, a paradox indeed.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
While I agree with most of the Op I believe a different title would have been more affective. Many are completely blinded by it and missing the point entirely.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Since you are bringing religion into this, does that mean atheists should not be allowed to be married?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Since you are bringing religion into this, does that mean atheists should not be allowed to be married?


Yes, what about British citizens who aren't a part of the church of England? Like Muslims, Jews, pagans, wiccans, etc.? Can they get marriage licenses from the state? Are they forced to get civil union licenses? If so, then at least there is equal treatment for all those who aren't members of the Church of England. But if all these other people can get a marriage license from the state, then gays should be able to get the exact same license.
edit on 14-12-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
another religious argument, claiming to own "marriage" when its the same damn thing as a civil union.

people of faith are looking hard for loopholes. need to be legally allowed to discriminate.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Meh, Gays getting married doesn't affect me....Oh wait, yes it does...It's been proven to improve the economy. Good enough excuse for me.
To say the only sacred marriage is between a man and woman sounds a lot like forcing religious views on everyone. This is one of the reasons politics and religion should be separate. Opinions formed from religious views shouldn't be law, but more personal rules for individuals to live by.
O and don't forget equality. In the future this stigma will sound as ridiculous as segregating a bunch of people based on race. (OK it's not as severe an injustice, but it's not completely unlike)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I agree with you a 100% tenth. Also I say that a church performed marriage is no more valid than the one done by a JP at city hall. If a marriage licence is involved, the legal and EQUAL rights would be there.

The whole issue of gay marriage is people who pay taxes want the same legal american benifits as their "straight" neighbors.

Also I have to add that children raise by gay /lesbian parents are much more well adjusted than children raised by "straight" parents who have hate in their hearts.

If God hates gays...................why did he make so many?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Try telling the IRS that you want to file a joint tax return because you have a "CIVIL UNION".



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





In other words churches could perform same sex marriages if they so desired.


That’s very true however I have to ask why the state has to get involved atoll, we already have civil partnerships this for me is just the state interfering were it is not wanted and the churched themselves have said on the whole they would not hold same sex marriage ceremonies so what is the point in the government bothering with this legislation.


No this is not the state putting itself where it doesn't belong. It is doing what it actually should be doing, letting the religious institution decide for themselves if they will or won't. It is giving those gay couples that wish to have a religious ceremony the same legitimacy as those that choose not to have the religious component without the headache of having to do it twice.

So 95% of the churches may choose not to wed same sex couples, does this mean that the 5% that would should not be able to legally marry people? Because from my understanding of it that is all the proposed law really does, enable those that would perform them can perform them with the full recognition of the state backing it. The same law also says the Church of England will not be performing them, so it really doesn't sound alot like forcing anyone to do anything.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Nothing changed my mind.

Our eldest was born via surrogate and our 3 others were adopted.

The surrogate is one of our best friends and to this day is still involved in all our children's lives.

~Tenth



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I as a gay individual can see your argument. I too believe that the WORD marriage is a religious word and doctrine. I would be fine with civil unions. Here in NY, they legalized marriage nearly 2 years ago. I don't care for the word, what I care about are the rights that go with the ceremonial union of 2 people.

Now that I am "married", I see that I gave up personal rights. The right to decide what to wear, what to eat, how to do my hair, whom I get to hang out with, and when I get to do my favorite activities....OY, to go back in time would be lovely!!!! lol



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
well.....this is going to piss alot of you off but so beit.. Since religion is a farce anyway, why bring religion into marriage, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Marriage has become strictly a legal thing now, there is no religion involved in it, since religion is fake anyways its a non issue, if two guys want to marry so beit, if two chicks want to marry so beit, why worry about it, its none of your business what two consenting adults want to do. Im not a homosexual but it certainly dosent bother me that someone else wants to be.
As far as the stats go, it seems gay people stay together a lot longer than straight people. so cudo's to you if you can find someone that makes you happy.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 
it is in my opinion...they are all against nature...not god....nature...the univerese know hat im say'n



Maybe you should take some time out and explain to nature and the universe. Because we do have documentation that proves it occurs in nature and both are apparently asleep at the wheel.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join