Same sex marriages!

druscilla_nesser:

Bloodraine:

XLoveXLikeXWinterX:

I personally think it is horrible who discriminate homosexuals! They are all homophobic and I feel horrible. It doesn't affect anyone, how would you feel if someone would let you marry and love who you love?

How would you feel if the government forced you to change the rules of your religion, though?

Depends on how you look at it.
According to Christianity, we're not supposed to follow all those rules from the Old Testament anymore. Just the ten commandments. That's why we can eat bacon and don't sell our daughters.

I'm a gay Christian.

And I plan to get married in a church.

That isn't what I was taught.

In Matthew’s record of The Sermon on the Mount (a collection of New testament Christian teachings) these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17-1.

Jesus did not come with the intent of destroying the Law, but only to build upon it. The OT is not null and void, according to Matthew. In fact, wasn't that the whole point of Jesus' existance? To come and replenish the teachings of God that had been set down before?

Beides, I'm pretty sure the Ten Commandments were from Ex. and not the New Testament.

And by the way, have you actually found a church that will marry you yet?

Bloodraine:

druscilla_nesser:

Bloodraine:

XLoveXLikeXWinterX:

I personally think it is horrible who discriminate homosexuals! They are all homophobic and I feel horrible. It doesn't affect anyone, how would you feel if someone would let you marry and love who you love?

How would you feel if the government forced you to change the rules of your religion, though?

Depends on how you look at it.
According to Christianity, we're not supposed to follow all those rules from the Old Testament anymore. Just the ten commandments. That's why we can eat bacon and don't sell our daughters.

I'm a gay Christian.

And I plan to get married in a church.

That isn't what I was taught.

In Matthew’s record of The Sermon on the Mount (a collection of New testament Christian teachings) these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17-1.

Jesus did not come with the intent of destroying the Law, but only to build upon it. The OT is not null and void, according to Matthew. In fact, wasn't that the whole point of Jesus' existance? To come and replenish the teachings of God that had been set down before?

Beides, I'm pretty sure the Ten Commandments were from Ex. and not the New Testament.

And by the way, have you actually found a church that will marry you yet?

There's tons in Los Angeles. Of course. Where else?

Anji:

There's tons in Los Angeles. Of course. Where else?

I don't live in LA; I wouldn't know

I support it.

But even if the government doesn't want to force people to change the rules of their religion, why can't homosexuals be allowed to get civil unions, to at least get the legal benefits of marriage?

^Word.

WeFoundTheDuck:

I support it.

But even if the government doesn't want to force people to change the rules of their religion, why can't homosexuals be allowed to get civil unions, to at least get the legal benefits of marriage?

They can do all that in my country.
I think its the perfect solution, in all honesty.

Bloodraine:

WeFoundTheDuck:

I support it.

But even if the government doesn't want to force people to change the rules of their religion, why can't homosexuals be allowed to get civil unions, to at least get the legal benefits of marriage?

They can do all that in my country.
I think its the perfect solution, in all honesty.

the reason this is such an issue: civil benefits are great, but you can only get them through marriage now, right?

wait...
wait a minute
civil benefits are from the State
and it's only possible with marriage from the Church

so, the Church and State benefit from each other and are connected.......shit

I'm starting to see a flaw

this is possibly NOT a separation of Church and State

well, maybe if we separated them, you know, keeping marriage in the Church and civil benefits in the State we could all get along right?

that's just silly though, that would take longer for people to get their money and isn't the greed of the individual better than the commonwealth of mankind?

spill_no_sick:

Bloodraine:

WeFoundTheDuck:

I support it.

But even if the government doesn't want to force people to change the rules of their religion, why can't homosexuals be allowed to get civil unions, to at least get the legal benefits of marriage?

They can do all that in my country.
I think its the perfect solution, in all honesty.

the reason this is such an issue: civil benefits are great, but you can only get them through marriage now, right?

wait...
wait a minute
civil benefits are from the State
and it's only possible with marriage from the Church

so, the Church and State benefit from each other and are connected.......shit

I'm starting to see a flaw

this is possibly NOT a separation of Church and State

well, maybe if we separated them, you know, keeping marriage in the Church and civil benefits in the State we could all get along right?

that's just silly though, that would take longer for people to get their money and isn't the greed of the individual better than the commonwealth of mankind?

I think that's the plan, because honestly, it's completely unfair for homosexual couples to be denied benefits that heterosexual couples with the exact same relationship recieve.

nothing against it.

WeFoundTheDuck:

spill_no_sick:

Bloodraine:

WeFoundTheDuck:

I support it.

But even if the government doesn't want to force people to change the rules of their religion, why can't homosexuals be allowed to get civil unions, to at least get the legal benefits of marriage?

They can do all that in my country.
I think its the perfect solution, in all honesty.

the reason this is such an issue: civil benefits are great, but you can only get them through marriage now, right?

wait...
wait a minute
civil benefits are from the State
and it's only possible with marriage from the Church

so, the Church and State benefit from each other and are connected.......shit

I'm starting to see a flaw

this is possibly NOT a separation of Church and State

well, maybe if we separated them, you know, keeping marriage in the Church and civil benefits in the State we could all get along right?

that's just silly though, that would take longer for people to get their money and isn't the greed of the individual better than the commonwealth of mankind?

I think that's the plan, because honestly, it's completely unfair for homosexual couples to be denied benefits that heterosexual couples with the exact same relationship recieve.

the fact that heterosexuals get it and homosexuals don't isn't the problem
I can't get a minority scolorship because I'm not black (and misspelled scholarship) but that's okay because the government isn't the one who controls it
it's a private organization

like the Church, except the Church is supposed to be separate from the government
so the government is at fault, not the Church
which really pisses me off that nearly everyone here is DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A RELIGION as a scapegoat
so, fuckheads, learn not to discriminate in any circumstance (even when money is involved greedy fuckheads) and we wouldn't have problems like this

Bloodraine:

And by the way, have you actually found a church that will marry you yet?

I plan to get married in a UU church.

Those were the ministers marrying all the homosexuals in the streets of San Francisco a year or so ago.

i really wish that gay marriage was legal in australia
i dont get what peoples problemis with us gay people we are just like everyone else

spill_no_sick:

the fact that heterosexuals get it and homosexuals don't isn't the problem
I can't get a minority scolorship because I'm not black (and misspelled scholarship) but that's okay because the government isn't the one who controls it
it's a private organization

like the Church, except the Church is supposed to be separate from the government
so the government is at fault, not the Church
which really pisses me off that nearly everyone here is DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A RELIGION as a scapegoat
so, fuckheads, learn not to discriminate in any circumstance (even when money is involved greedy fuckheads) and we wouldn't have problems like this

I blame both parties equally. The church has discriminated against homosexuals for years and years, and they make it easy for the government to use religion as an excuse to keep homosexuals from marrying.

Church and state are not separate, in my opinion, which is the main part of the problem.

The government is at fault for not upholding the Constitution and keeping church and state seperate.

Straight people can get married in a courthouse, which isn't a religious ceremony.

Gay people can't.

That's not the church talkin'.

Bittersweet vivisect ants:

Bloodraine:

They'll just have to accept that if the church will not bless their marriage, then they must find another way.
To my mind, I do not believe in the God of Theology who rewards good and punishes Evil. I don't believe that man would be created to lie with another man and then be punished for it.

Exactly.

You're clearly not gay.
We are born this way.
I was born gay.
It's part of who I am.

WeFoundTheDuck:

I blame both parties equally. The church has discriminated against homosexuals for years and years, and they make it easy for the government to use religion as an excuse to keep homosexuals from marrying.

Church and state are not separate, in my opinion, which is the main part of the problem.

Well they are, but they're not. It's pretty confusing if I say so myself.
They have the whole Separation of Church and State, but there are constantly conflicts and links between the two, gay marriage being one of these as such.

Religion won't allow it because it's against same sex couples, "man should not lie with another man" yadda yadda. The government won't allow it because it sees legal marriage as the joining of a man and woman in a church. Hence where the two mix and it's hard to tell that line where they should be separated and why these conflicts still continue.

It's hard to say for sure really which can be viewed as normal and correct just by opinions.
This is where I become mixed on the subject. I think sometimes that it should be allowed because love should know no gender, but then I think it shouldn't be because of how it conflicts not only with religion and government but with society as well.
Civil unions, perhaps. It's not literally the same as being able to say "hey I got married." because it's not marriage. Just union with all the benefits and such.
I realize that it might not sound as though gay couples are treated equally this way and it really does look like it's unfair, but sometimes things like this are for the better.

It is against what the Bible preaches to be a homosexual, isn't it? Well, depending on which version of the Bible and which sector of the Church. If so, then I believe that the Church has every right not to marry gay couples. Life's unfair, you just have to deal with a marriage not approved by God.

I'm going to break this down. Civil unions are not equal to marriages.

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Yes, a lawyer can set up certain things like medical power of attorney, guardianship of children, wills, etc. But there are problems.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
And you can bet somebody like my bitch stepmother would challenge my children being left to my dyke wife if something happened to me.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

* * *

So, no, they are not equal.

* * *

Information found here.

Where I'm from they are.

Anji:

Where I'm from they are.

I was going to say, In England the civil partnership 'marriage' awards couples with the exact same rights as marrie couples just minus the religion.



Civil Partnership

From 5 December 2005, same sex couples can have their relationships legally recognised. From then on, anyone who registers a civil partnership will have the same rights as a married couple in areas like tax, social security, inheritance and workplace benefits.

Civil partnership in other countries
Denmark introduced the first civil partnership status in 1989. The following countries now have some form of civil partnership registration: Belgium, Canada (Quebec, Nova Scotia), Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, USA (Vermont, Connecticut). The rights and responsibilities attached to the different arrangements vary.



The UK’s civil partnership status is not the same thing as gay marriage. Only the Netherlands and Belgium have legislated to allow gay marriage.



Bold Text - Meaning tgat in the netherlands and belgium the church recognises same sex relations, not stating that the UK doesn't but they are not willing (with good cause) to allow gay marriage.