Gay Marriage is Wrong and I am not a Homophobe

Here is a question for the OP, I would like to know where exactly in the bible
it tells you that marriage is a christian or even religious institution, so far as
i understand it the christian bible does not say a whole lot about marriage.

The idea that marriage is a religious thing is modern and not actually even
a proper claim. i think the reason is that most of the folks who perform
marriages are ministers but remember that here in the US, and im honestly
not so sure about the UK, but we also allow judges to marry folks.

Let’s face it...it is the problem with the State for not making civil unions on par with marriage. Not the religious institutions. So really, isn't it the State's inability to commit to the homosexual community? I mean the State does make the laws of the land, not the temples, churches, mosques, and synagogues. What ever happened to the seperation of the church and state???

It IS within the power of the State to grant equal status, it uses this issue as a political football. The longer this issue is not resolved, the longer politicians can use this to get votes. Just "kick the can down the road" to get votes. The LGBT community is being played. The sooner we see this, the sooner we will realise this is not the only issue, which we are all being used, to keep corrupt politicians in office.

Your a homophobe because some homosexuals cannot handle you having an opinion different to theirs.

We don't have fataphobes, dolaphobes, lefthandaphobes, Christaphobes or hinduaphobes. Mind you, all those type of people seem more secure in who or what they choose to be...... no wait they were born that way, well some of them.

You can disagree with someone in a bar, over a football match, about politics... but disagree with a homosexual..... whoooaaaaa... your a HOMOPHOBE.

And they wonder why they used to be called limp-wristed, effeminate and weak! Because they were, still are but throw the word intolerant around now to try to 'shame' you.

But if a homosexual doesn't like YOUR stand on sexuality that is different to his opinion, doesn't that make him intolerant of you? Darn right it does.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I am with you on this one regardless of what others think. I don't think the government should get involved with anything on the religious side of things. In saying that, Religion should butt out also when it comes to politics. They are two seperate entities with seperate laws or traditions. If homosexuals want to legally marry, why don't they starting building the "churches of equality" or something which are recognised or approved by there governments and leave the religious side out of it? Everyone is happy then.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I doubt their religions 'allow' pre-marital sex or having children out of wedlock and plenty of people that do both get married in religious ceremonies.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


You sir, are a homophobe and a fool.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Why can't the government leave it up to each individual church who can or cannot allow gay marriage? In England, I know you can start your own religion, so someone could / should effectively start a branch of Episcopalian or Presbyterianism over there that does do gay marriage ceremonies. I have always thought a good answer to this is to have some religions offer gay marriage services.

Also, question: if a religion was o.k. to marry gays, would they be allowed to under U.K. law? Because they should be.

reply to post by darkbake


Just to point out the only way to start a Religion (recognised) is to get other religious leaders to agree it is a religion...so not much chance of that.
Otherwise we would have temple of the Jedis here..

reply to post by bloodreviara

That Christian marriage (i.e. marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined in canon i, Sess. XXIV: "If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema."

In the proof of Apostolicity of the doctrine that marriage is a sacrament of the New Law, it will suffice to show that the Church has in fact always taught concerning marriage what belongs to the essence of a sacrament. The name sacrament cannot be cited as satisfactory evidence, since it did not acquire until a late period the exclusively technical meaning it has today; both in pre-Christian times and in the first centuries of the Christian Era it had a much broader and more indefinite signification. In this sense is to be understood the statement of Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Arcanum" (10 February, 1880): "To the teaching of the Apostles, indeed, are to be referred the doctrines which our holy fathers, the councils, and the tradition of the Universal Church have always taught, namely that Christ Our Lord raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament."

The classical Scriptural text is the declaration of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:22 sqq.), who emphatically declares that the relation between husband and wife should be as the relation between Christ and His Church: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." After this exhortation the Apostle alludes to the Divine institution of marriage in the prophetical words proclaimed by God through Adam: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh." He then concludes with the significant words in which he characterizes Christian marriage: "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church."

www.newadvent.org...

Perhaps the key here is "Christian marriage", as it is clear that many seculars also enjoy marriage. As a Sacrament of the Church however, I think that gay marriage is somewhat heretical.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Why should the rights of homosexuals be above the rights of religious people and institutions?

Because some homosexual people are religious and so their rights and equalities are being denied.

Because 'none religious' people can get married and their right to do so is not questioned or denied.

Because not every religious person is against gay marriage.

Because not every religious institution is against gay marriage.

Because we live in a society that places the values of individual equality over the second coming of the 1700s inquisition and religious hierarchy .... thankfully !

Religion is another word for culture... societies can make up their own religious parameters depending on their interpretation, people make up their own culture.... Institutions that choose to follow antiquated beliefs do so for the same reason they have always done.... to deny equal rights and maintain a hierarchy, to assert control and keep people ignorant so they don't want change. Now I'm getting off topic so ... will finish off with.... Their Jesus had two dads.

Romans used to marry man to man, if they so wished (as long as they were reasonably seasoned with wealth and weren't marrying a slave).
Marriage never even used to be so formal. No signing of certificates, or big do. When you would "take a wife" you would literally offer this woman to be your wife, and that was it. She was your wife.

I also question the OP's statement "I'm not a homophobe". How can you claim this but not extend them the same rights as other people?
It's like when people tell racist jokes, then claim they're not racist because they have loads of black friends.

You claim that same sex marriage is putting homosexuality before religion... it's not. It's putting humanity before religion.
How many times have we seen barbaric acts against other people, and claimed it's not right because they're human and they have rights, just as much as anyone else?
How many people in Uganda are keeping their sexuality secret because they get murdered in the street? Uganda is a predominantly Christian country, and Christianity teaches us that murder is wrong, and to accept and love each other as we would want to be loved and accepted. This is putting religion before human rights.

So who is in the right OP?

reply to post by LexiconV

Their Jesus had two dads.

This statement is heretical in that everyone knows that Jesus affirming God as his father did not make his earthly father and his Heavenly Father gay. It is an outrageous insinuation you make and you do it for heretical purposes. But it is not surprising that people here would make such remarks in an effort to legitimize their beliefs.

If, however, St. Thomas in this passage attributes to the sacerdotal blessing too great an influence on the essence of the sacrament of marriage, he manifestly corrects himself in his later work, "Summa contra gentiles", in which he undoubtedly places the whole essence of the sacrament in the mutual consent of the contracting parties: "Marriage, therefore, inasmuch as it consists in the union of man and woman, who propose to beget and rear children for the glory of God, is a sacrament of the Church; therefore the contracting parties are blessed by the ministers of the Church. And as in the other sacraments something spiritual is signified by an external ceremony, so here in this sacrament the union of Christ, and the Church is typified by the union of man and woman according to the Apostle: 'This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.

www.newadvent.org...

So the UK government doesn't give out marriage licenses or other legal contract like in America?

Because legally in the USA marriage has nothing to do with religion.

reply to post by ShotGunRum


Yes, it does; but marriage was held as a monopoly by the Churches.

I completely agree with the OP. I too have nothing against homosexuality. I think that gay couples have every right to join in civil partnership. Who is to dictate what love is and who should be with who? However, marrying in a church can not be 'allowed' for the sake of equality. Christianity is what it is and you can't go changing the rules to meet political agendas. Christian marriage is about the joining of man and woman. The vows cannot apply to two members of the same sex.

I also have to wonder why a gay person would want to get married in an establishment that is against gay marriage when they have the ability to join in civil partnership? I understand that it may be difficult to be gay AND christian but I am not in a position to speculate being neither religious or gay so I'm sure there are reasons.

Keep the church traditionally Christian, let them decide who can and can't marry and keep the politicians noses out of it, that's my opinion.

reply to post by CaptChaos


You support patriarchal arranged marriages where the women has no choice?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

the institution of marriage in the UK is a religious one that is based on religious dogma,

err actually it isnt it is a tort - thats why it can be legalised in a register office , and disolved by a judge

further - i can name 3 different ordained ministers who can preform a legal marriage ceremony in the UK - all based on differeng religious dogmas [ christian , hindu , sihk ]

all 3 claim " authority from god " - but what god ?? thier dogmas are often mutually exclusive

so why cannot homosexualys just invent thier own marriage dogma - everyone else has

lastly - allowing homosexuals to call it marriage is creating an equal platform - not " elevating thier rights above others " - you simply cannot show favouritism by allowing a group to do what other groups can allready do - thats equality - not favouritism

favouritism is allowing one group a privielidge than no other is afforded

reply to post by fiftyfifty


A civil partnership doesn't give the partnered couple the same rights as a married couple would have. This is what my friend has to say on it:

Civil partnership is not marriage, its like when the kids want to help with the housework so you give them a pretend Hoover!

There are a lot of differences actually. Firstly the name gives it away, if it was marriage it would be called that. It gives you different rights towards children, inheritance, and if the other one dies are all different. It is different in try eyes of benefits law and pensions. We want 100% equal rights, why settle for half?

This coming from a woman that when her son was born, she was not allowed paternity time off because she is not a physical man. Though her role in the relationship is that of a traditional father.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by LexiconV

 

Their Jesus had two dads.

This statement is heretical in that everyone knows that Jesus affirming God as his father did not make his earthly father and his Heavenly Father gay. It is an outrageous insinuation you make and you do it for heretical purposes. But it is not surprising that people here would make such remarks in an effort to legitimize their beliefs.

'heretical'.... Not ! For it's not my accepted faith.
'and you do it for heretical purposes'... Garbage... Your faith does not define my parameters of reply.
"outrageous insinuation'... it's called humour ! And together it's the reason why I see humanity evolving beyond religious dogma and hate for their fellow man based on what a bunch of old men in frocks who never marry and never express their sexuality as a creative force. Now that's unnatural ! ... To remain sexually immature for the rest of one's life... seems heretical to the divine driving force of Life.

And considering that since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities..... hence it's your belief in one of these deities that dictate your beliefs, culture and judgements. A free thinker does not have that handicap.

reply to post by fiftyfifty


I agree IF religion was kept out of state matters but here in the UK we have religious leaders in the house of lords so until we have complete separation of church and state I think state should be able to dictate what religious rules come about, because the religious have been trying to control our government for a very long time.