I have my view but I'm just curious of you guy's view on the subject of gay marriage. Are you for it or against it and why? Do you feel it's important for it to be defined by law what it means and why do you feel this way?
I am against the government recognizing any kind of marriage at all. In my opinion, the social construction currently legally defined as a "marriage" should be defined as a civil union, and should be an inalienable right for all adults of age, regardless of their partner's gender. The churches, synagogues, temples; they will be the ones who perform "marriage" ceremonies, and as private religions, will have the authority to allow or not allow ceremonies between two adults of the same gender. If the Pope doesn't want to support gay marriage ceremonies, or a priest's moral beliefs do not allow him to perform the ceremonies, it is perfectly within their right. But the couple could still find a non-denominational church if necessary, and in the eyes of the government, they are entered into a civil union. "Marriage" is a ceremony. Being linked with another human being so closely that one qualifies for a civil union is a legal status. Honestly, I don't see why this wouldn't solve everyone's objections; it provides equal rights to all adults wishing to make a life commitment to another human being, while allowing those religions opposed to homosexuality to maintain their moral values and not be forced to support gay marriage ceremonies within their religion. Finally, it further separates church and state, which is undoubtedly a good thing for the well-being of the country. I've never understood why religious groups are the most fervently against gay marriage; undoubtedly, throughout history the two groups share so many commonalities. Both have faced persecution and ostracizing for their beliefs, "not normal physical practices", even so far as to call them mentally defective. You would think that the oppressed would understand where their brothers and sisters were coming from. I believe that it is un-American to deny certain citizens rights based on such criteria, and strongly favor that civil unions, the only construct recognized by the government, be extended to couples of both the same sex and mixed gender.
This well-represents my position on the matter. Aren't civil unions and marriages tantamount to equal under the law? Marriage is a religious tradition which has been granted the legal power of union, I guess. If you've read "The Shack," God alleges that he did not create the institution of marriage. It's only a book but it's also a radical idea for the church...
Great post, but aren't there certain denominations that do marry gay people? Like Church of Christ? I don't see why the more conservative denominations can't just let other denominations do what they find right.
Why would an atheist want any kind of church service? I think they can get the equivalent legal status through a civil union, can't they?
Sure. And when they introduce themselves, they can no longer say "he's my husband" or "she's my wife" or "we're married"? You think that's what people want and how society should be? Only the religious people can claim to be husband & wife or married? Marriage has existed both within and outside of religion as a legal/governmental status for much of human history. For religion to try to co-opt it as exclusively their own thing is nonsense.
Why not? Religion has co-opted pretty every much every major pagan ritual there was. So why not marriage?
What is marriage that a civil union is not--- other than the religious ceremony (which is usually participated in by those devoted to the religion)?
You have plenty of heteros that go to a church or a chapel and get married that aren't religious. Sure, they may have a rudimentary belief in God, but they are doing it more out of tradition than of a real interest in a perfect union ordained by God. To many religions, particularly Christianity, marriage is a sacred gift from God. That is why you have the folks who dont think homosexuals should be able to marry. I would say a large majority of folks who are against Gay Marriage are FOR similar rights that married couples get under the laws of the land applying to those under civil unions. I know I am. Some folks look upon Gays calling it marriage as a proverbial slap in the face to their beliefs. It makes you wonder when the biggest point of contention is what to call it. And its coming from both sides, so its apparently not as silly as some make it out to be.
I don't understand why heterosexuals against gay marriage would be at all hurt if homosexuals who have a "civil union" also call it marriage? What is the harm? If you it's for religious reasons, then your church doesn't have to perform them. That's fine, but if another church does, and there are CHRISTIAN churches that do, then why should someone else be upset? As for the civil unions vs. marriage argument, it makes no sense. Major has already pointed out why, but in addition our nation has already determined that separate but equal isn't really equal. We don't need to move backwards. Anytime the govt. recognized one pair of consenting adults as married, but doesn't allow another pair of consenting adults to be married based on who they are, it is discrimination. It is important to wipe out discrimination from our laws ASAP. The reason is that it's justice, and it's constitutional. The whole govt. shouldn't determine any marriage is also odd. Because I didn't see anyone telling govt. to stay out of marriage before GAY marriage became an issue. Prior to this people weren't wanting govt. to stay out of marriage. It seems like now people are saying this because it's easier to hide their discomfort with homosexual marriage. In addition it's a lot easier to change one allowing any pair of consenting adults to get married than it is to wipe out all the laws relating to marriage now. The bottom line is that nobody gets hurt if gay marriage is allowed. Some people might get uncomfortable, but that isn't part of our rights or justice system. Being made to feel comfortable is guaranteed anywhere. Equal application of the laws is in our constitution. Nobody against gay marriage has to enter into one. But it certainly doesn't hurt you if others into it.
What about religions that are willing to marry gay couples. It has to be legal for that to happen. finalsbound had a good point with that. And nobody on the side for discrimination against homosexuals has brought it up yet. Or is the idea that if a church will marry two consenting adults it can be called a marriage regardless of their sex?
Sorry slapping someone's belief in the face is fine and dandy by the constitution. Like I said being made to feel uncomfortable isn't unconstitutional. The reason why the name is important is because, as a nation, we've already tried separate but equal, and we found it wasn't really equal.
I don't understand why homosexuals are so vehement about having it called marriage......actually, I have some supicions as to why but, thats for later. Franchise, in it's simplest form, please tell me why you cannot grasp the concept that 1 man + 1 woman is not the same thing as 1 man + 1 man (1 woman + 1 woman) I understand that they are 2 consenting adults that love each other, but it's still not the same thing, it's two VERY different concepts and should be treated as such...
Which is why I said keep the term marriage out of the government. Let government recognize civil unions for tax and property laws. Let the government honor private religious ceremonies of similar stature(marriages or what have you) so that folks dont have to do it twice. And this is not directly at you FB, but why is it OK to make the minority not feel uncomfortable at the same time making the majority feel uncomfortable?? This is the kind of issue where trying to appease one side will definately make the other uncomfortable.
Unless women or men should be discriminated against then in the eyes of the law it should be the same thing. When two people of different sexes are up for a promotion does not 1 man = 1 woman in the eyes of the law? Why should that be true sometimes in the eyes of the law but not in others?
