Same sex marriages!

If you have a state 'marriage' it's technically a civil partnership marriage, which for all accounts should and is open for homosexual couples

see other 45894844 million posts on civil partnerships.

CristhyneS:

But since some of you justify chruch not allowing gay marrige, think of this for a moment:

Not too long ago married people who decided to get ligally divorced weren't accepted by religion. That until a pope came and said that getting divorced was okay for religion, even though that *to the eyes of god* two peorsons married in the chruch would always be married. Maybe in a few more decades a pope might say that homosexuality is okay.

Actually..
Matthew chapter 19, verse 9 (all bible extracts taken from the Good News Bible, published 1999)
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if her marries some other woman."

Divorce was allowed by Jesus if a man was cheated on by his wife. That was the sole exception. Another bible passage (because I'm a bible fanatic, ya)
Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22.
"No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that"

This rule does not appear to allow any excpetions, full stop. Unlike Jesus' aformentioned teachings on divorce.

My best friend's mom is a lesbian. She and her partner are the coolest and funniest people ever. It shows that they're not different, they just have different tastes sexually. I don't think it should stop them from being able to do things a heterosexual couple is allowed to do. Love is Love. You can't stop it, whether it's with a person of the same sex or different sex.

Bloodraine:

CristhyneS:

But since some of you justify chruch not allowing gay marrige, think of this for a moment:

Not too long ago married people who decided to get ligally divorced weren't accepted by religion. That until a pope came and said that getting divorced was okay for religion, even though that *to the eyes of god* two peorsons married in the chruch would always be married. Maybe in a few more decades a pope might say that homosexuality is okay.

Actually..
Matthew chapter 19, verse 9 (all bible extracts taken from the Good News Bible, published 1999)
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if her marries some other woman."

Divorce was allowed by Jesus if a man was cheated on by his wife. That was the sole exception. Another bible passage (because I'm a bible fanatic, ya)
Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22.
"No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that"

This rule does not appear to allow any excpetions, full stop. Unlike Jesus' aformentioned teachings on divorce.

I've read Leviticus quite a few times (but yes, that's about the only part of the bible I've read entirely). I know about that passage.

My point there was about divorce though. Isn't ligaly divorced people now allowed to take communion every sunday just like everyone else, while in the past they weren't, until a pope came and changed that?

CristhyneS:

I'm not too sure if I explained myself properly or if I even tried to explain this at all or not.

I'm not asking for goverment to make chruch accept gay marriage. I think goverment should legalize gay marriage.

If a homosexual couple walks in a chruch to get married but the priest says "no, I can't get you two married because it goes agaisnt my religion." Tha'ts perfectly alright and valid.

But if a judge tells the same couple, "I'm sorry, I can't get you two married." That's wrong. What's the excuse for the judge to say that. That the constitution doesn't allow marriage? And why doesn't the constituion allow homesexual marriage if being homsexual is perefectly legal?

Why doesn't the constituion allow homesexual marriage?


It sounds to me like a lot of you don't agree with marriage in general. And that's alright. But the discusion here is gay marriage.

And I don't see a logical reason (very different from valid), apart from a religious one, to not legalize gay marriage as long as heterosexual marriage is legal to the eyes of the state. (I'm not saying that chruch should allow gay marrige too).

But since some of you justify chruch not allowing gay marrige, think of this for a moment:

Not too long ago married people who decided to get ligally divorced weren't accepted by religion. That until a pope came and said that getting divorced was okay for religion, even though that *to the eyes of god* two peorsons married in the chruch would always be married. Maybe in a few more decades a pope might say that homosexuality is okay.

alright
sorry it took me long to reply, but I wrote this fantastic Nobel Prize worthy response and GSB wouldn't load for another day for me
but we've been basically saying the exact same thing, I just expanded on it
let's avoid confusion here
what you say: "state marriage", the way I say it: "civil benefits"
what you say: "Church marriage", the way I say it: "marriage"

so I'll just break it down, since GSB is a bitch when I write in paragraph form

THE BACKGROUND INFO
-marriage was started by the Jews (as a way to convert nonbelievers by saying, "this is the gift God has given us"
-unlike most of their traditions (bat mitzvah, bar mitzvah) they said all heterosexuals may indulge in it (again, it was to convert, but they put those restrictions on it

THE FIRST PROBLEMS
-the U.S. started giving benefits (tax breaks, easier ways around legal issues such as wills/power over a loved one in coma state/etc.) to people who married
-that was unconstitutional because the government may not benefit or control the Church and the Church may not benefit or control the government
-well, I would say that the big issue this is today, the Church is apparently benefiting, right?

THE OTHER PROBLEMS
-now, many jobs give benefits (health benefits, and other stuff like that) to married couples
-that isn't unconstitutional because they are not the government, it is just plain mean to exclude certain groups

LIKELY FUTURE PROBLEMS
-well, if we allow the government to change the rules of the Church (allowing gay marriage) then we are continuing the unconstitutional track we've been on (and being Americans, we don't care, as long as there's money involved...don't you love how much we *care* about other people?

THE WAY IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE (I'll add "in my opinion" for those idiots who don't realize that what I say is not my opinion and in fact what I say will not come true so don't criticize me for thinking for myself because in predicting your response I have just proved that you don't....I'll also add "not to anyone in particular" because some might take offense
-marriage stays a religious tradition that all heterosexuals can indulge in, but it stays a CEREMONY and COMMITMENT NOT MONEY and BENEFITS
-if you want those benefits the government will give out the paperwork with the marriage liscence and you just have to say that you're commited (even though there's a 60% chance you'll divorce) and anyone (of any sexual orientation) can recieve this legal civil benefit blah blah blah


and for what you said about the Pope
that's a much more complicated matter since Catholicism has many more traditions that what the Bible says and the actual laws for marriage and divorce and such are in the early chapters of the Bible/Torah/Book of Mormon (Leviticus, Numbers and such)

The Fool On The Hill:

My best friend's mom is a lesbian. She and her partner are the coolest and funniest people ever. It shows that they're not different, they just have different tastes sexually. I don't think it should stop them from being able to do things a heterosexual couple is allowed to do. Love is Love. You can't stop it, whether it's with a person of the same sex or different sex.

That is an argument that has been used by so many, but it's not right.

You would need to be more specific, think about it. Would you allow incest or beastiality? I think not.

As for my opinion, I think that gender should hold no boundaries. Homosexuals are people too, with different love interests.

I used to feel that the reason people were so against homosexuality is because of 'mating'. As with the animals, they don't mate for pleasure, they mate for children.

But over the centuries, sex has changed with humans in so many ways. There is no telling what homophobes and people who are just against people being gay are thinking now.

I feel that marriage isn't always in the eyes of the Church or the eyes of the Law. Marriage is what the couple takes it as; a simple exchange of self-written vows is simple enough to some.

But to others, they feel the need for the security of a paper.

Tunny's Bitch:

The Fool On The Hill:

My best friend's mom is a lesbian. She and her partner are the coolest and funniest people ever. It shows that they're not different, they just have different tastes sexually. I don't think it should stop them from being able to do things a heterosexual couple is allowed to do. Love is Love. You can't stop it, whether it's with a person of the same sex or different sex.

That is an argument that has been used by so many, but it's not right.

You would need to be more specific, think about it. Would you allow incest or beastiality? I think not.

As for my opinion, I think that gender should hold no boundaries. Homosexuals are people too, with different love interests.

I used to feel that the reason people were so against homosexuality is because of 'mating'. As with the animals, they don't mate for pleasure, they mate for children.

But over the centuries, sex has changed with humans in so many ways. There is no telling what homophobes and people who are just against people being gay are thinking now.

I feel that marriage isn't always in the eyes of the Church or the eyes of the Law. Marriage is what the couple takes it as; a simple exchange of self-written vows is simple enough to some.

But to others, they feel the need for the security of a paper.

that's also been an overused argument
how constitutional do you think it is that the government changes the rules of the Church?
the Church invented marriage, should the government be allowed to change the rules the Church set?
it was the government's fault for getting caught up and saying "sure, we'll even give you benefits, but you have to get married"
the Church never said anything about money, just commitment
the state decided to selectively give out benefits, so this isn't the fault of the Church, but the fault of the State
so the Church shouldn't change, the State should

Tunny's Bitch:

The Fool On The Hill:

My best friend's mom is a lesbian. She and her partner are the coolest and funniest people ever. It shows that they're not different, they just have different tastes sexually. I don't think it should stop them from being able to do things a heterosexual couple is allowed to do. Love is Love. You can't stop it, whether it's with a person of the same sex or different sex.

That is an argument that has been used by so many, but it's not right.

You would need to be more specific, think about it. Would you allow incest or beastiality? I think not.

As for my opinion, I think that gender should hold no boundaries. Homosexuals are people too, with different love interests.

I used to feel that the reason people were so against homosexuality is because of 'mating'. As with the animals, they don't mate for pleasure, they mate for children.

But over the centuries, sex has changed with humans in so many ways. There is no telling what homophobes and people who are just against people being gay are thinking now.

I feel that marriage isn't always in the eyes of the Church or the eyes of the Law. Marriage is what the couple takes it as; a simple exchange of self-written vows is simple enough to some.

But to others, they feel the need for the security of a paper.

I agree with the first line. I never think that getting married in church is a big thing. I never thought of that event when I was younger. But the las line seems like if a homosexual couple wants to get married in church that they dont realize what true love is. If they care about it I think their right is to get married there. But I just think that homosexual couples know about true love more then some straight people. They are together, they arent married, but they love each other and they want to show their love to the world by getting married in church or just by getting married at all. I think they should be given that right. They arent asking for anything bad, are they?

spill_no_sick:

-marriage stays a religious tradition that all heterosexuals can indulge in, but it stays a CEREMONY and COMMITMENT NOT MONEY and BENEFITS
-if you want those benefits the government will give out the paperwork with the marriage liscence and you just have to say that you're commited (even though there's a 60% chance you'll divorce) and anyone (of any sexual orientation) can recieve this legal civil benefit blah blah blah

So we actually agree on this?

CristhyneS:

spill_no_sick:

-marriage stays a religious tradition that all heterosexuals can indulge in, but it stays a CEREMONY and COMMITMENT NOT MONEY and BENEFITS
-if you want those benefits the government will give out the paperwork with the marriage liscence and you just have to say that you're commited (even though there's a 60% chance you'll divorce) and anyone (of any sexual orientation) can recieve this legal civil benefit blah blah blah

So we actually agree on this?

if your post was sarcasm: I said we agree on what is going on
our perceptions are the same, I just added on some extra stuff

if your post was sincere: yes, I believe that Church marriage is a ceremony and about commitment, and I believe that State marriage is about benefits and commitment

My post was sincere (hence why I hate Internet discussions, you can't know for sure what's sarcasm and what's not).

I think it should be alloud everywhere, bush is an asshole for getting into peoples personal lives like that.

Raindrops_on_Roses:

I think it should be alloud everywhere, bush is an asshole for getting into peoples personal lives like that.

If you think legalizing gay marriage is equal for everyone, you're wrong.

Raindrops_on_Roses:

I think it should be alloud everywhere, bush is an asshole for getting into peoples personal lives like that.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!
I am tired of the exact same mother fucking damn argument
you used the exact same damn statement, with the exact same damn signature as everyone else who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about

seriously, I don't mean to get mad at just you, but marriage isn't much more complicated than that (mainly because it has two different meanings, it's like you think 2 and to are the same word and you think Bush is an idiot for saying he has "to daughters"
and plus, Bush doesn't make the fucking laws, he doesn't even enforce them
in case you don't know, the American president can't do anything that affects the shortterm
they are only there to make sure our economy is the best in the world because no one in this country is politically educated (c'mon, Steph and Bloodraine are the two most educated on American history and American politics, don't you feel a twinge of guilt for this)




and in case you just skip down to the bottom, I have a post on page 40 that breaks down the actual issue of marriage that the news forgot to tell you (it wouldn't be propaganda if they just delivered unbiased facts that you need to know

Honestly, I think that anyone who wants to get married to people of the same sex, they should be able to. Really, if the two people love each other, they should be able to be united by marriage.

I Need Her:

Honestly, I think that anyone who wants to get married to people of the same sex, they should be able to. Really, if the two people love each other, they should be able to be united by marriage.

read the post I wrote right above you because I am tired of repeating myself yet I think that it is important that everyone knows that the issue is much more complex than "tat stoopid rednec bush is an asshol b/c gay are peepel and tey can luv 2 lik strate peepel"

I Need Her:

Honestly, I think that anyone who wants to get married to people of the same sex, they should be able to. Really, if the two people love each other, they should be able to be united by marriage.

Alright, before Nick's head explodes and he kills someone, I'll try explaining this... I'll even you emoticons and pretty colors to keep peoples interest

Alright, so check this out:

Marriage is... a RELIGIOUS tradition. Now, in case that confuses people, I'll elaborate, this means that it originated as something the church did. This religion considers homosexuality a Sin. This is where the conflict begins.
So, now, in modern times, marriage is important to culture. You recieve government benifits for being married. ZOMG WTF NO WAY. Now, lets put two and two together. Marriage is a religious practce, and you get government benifits for it, which means you recieve government benifits for practicing a certain religion.
This, for the purpose of the US, is unconstitutional. Seperation of Church and state should make this illegal, but it's not, and honestly, I don't see it ever changing, ever.

Now, this also brings up the issue "but atheist straight people and agnostic people can get married." This is another reason why its unfair. They support the morals of the Church, in this case, so they are allowed to be married. Lame.

Now, gay People can have civil partnerships, but they are not the equivilant of marriage. Civil unions, as of now, are not a federal issue in the case of the United States, it's a state government issue, and the state government decides which benifits they give. this means if a Gay couple had a civil Union, and wanted to move to a differnet state, their partnership is no longer valid, as if they were a straight married couple, it would be. This also means that Gay People could never recieve federal marriage benifits, such as being able to file joint income taxes. The two are not equal.

Now, if you want gay marriage to be legalized because you want equality for all, you are a crazy brainwashed liberal (no offence meg, not all liberals are crazy ) By making it legal, you are degrading religious morals, and people who practice that religion. By keeping it illegal, you are discriminating againt gay people.
My solution:

Eliminate marriage from all government related things. You should recieve no federal benifits because you practice a religion, and your sexuality shouldn't give you the right to tramp all over church morals either. Wouldn't it be better to change civil partnerships, make it a national policy, and have everyone be treated equally? I think so.

Now, I think Americans are a bunch of stubborn bastards, and we will never do away with marriage. Maybe it can work somewhere else, but Im not idealistic enough to think it will ever work here, at least anytime soon.

spill_no_sick:

I Need Her:

Honestly, I think that anyone who wants to get married to people of the same sex, they should be able to. Really, if the two people love each other, they should be able to be united by marriage.

read the post I wrote right above you because I am tired of repeating myself yet I think that it is important that everyone knows that the issue is much more complex than "tat stoopid rednec bush is an asshol b/c gay are peepel and tey can luv 2 lik strate peepel"

i know it's more complex... but im just stating my general opinion.

I know that i_worship_tre_cool is right, all things religious should be seperated from the government in total, because it defies the seperation between Church and state. We can hope it will change and that state will ACTUALLY seperate from Church, but the US government in reality would not change that... at least not in the recent future.

I think alot of people in this thread don't want to say they are opposed to Gay marriage for fear of being called homophobic, but you wouldn't be, the other people hadn't really thought about what "equality for all" actually means. The majority of people who posted in this thread have the common opinion of wanting Gay people to have the same right's as straight people. However, they also share the misconception that making gay marriage legal makes them equal, it doesn't.

Christ, did someone shit a rainbow in here?
Seriously, that post made my head hurt.
But it made sense, so i'm not arguing.