Should same-sex marriages be made legal?

[pro5ject]

President George W Bush has said he will carry on trying to make homosexual marriages illegal in the US after a constitutional amendment on the issue was defeated by the Senate.

- The Republican proposal failed to gain the support of the 60 senators it needed to progress to the next stage.

Mr Bush is seeking to change the US constitution to specify that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman.

So far 38 US states have banned homosexual marriage, but lawsuits in Florida, Nebraska, New Jersey and Oregon are seeking to have it ruled legal.

Republicans have vowed to fight on but the measure is now unlikely to be passed before the November elections.



A view on this matter - Marriage is a legal joining of two individuals. People who are not religious choose to get married in a registry office and not in church. Marriage shows the strongest commitment you can make to one another. I fail to see what God has to do with this? Marriage in this instance is not religious, but a legal joining. Getting married is the ultimate way of showing your love and commitment to your partner, so why should gay people be deprived of this right? Who are we to sit and judge anyway? Same sex marriages should be legalised as soon as possible, we are clearly living in a backward society which is yet to embrace what society wanted 10 years ago.

 

[MATRIX]

No. :tired2:

 

[loggerheads]

I think Marriage is all about religion, it's where the whole idea stems from, I believe. Having said that, if a man and a woman can be married in a civil, legal sence, I see no reason to deprive homosexuals of that right. The "Civil Partnerships" which were being considered in the UK fairly recently sounded like a fairly good idea, essentially giving homosexual couples the same rights (financial/legal) as heterosexual couples, without the perhaps uneccesarily emotive word "marriage".
This raised various other issues, but essentially marriage is an issue of religion/culture, for example in the UK a man can only legally have one wife, but under various religions polygamy is acceptable.
As to it being societies will, I suspect that'd be close, the Daily Mail has a wide readership, but certainly if society has accepted (as I believe it has done through the human rights act for a start) that discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation is wrong, then presumably denying the right to marry can no longer be justified.

 

[jmiller]

A view on this matter - Marriage is a legal joining of two individuals. People who are not religious choose to get married in a registry office and not in church. Marriage shows the strongest commitment you can make to one another. I fail to see what God has to do with this? Marriage in this instance is not religious, but a legal joining. Getting married is the ultimate way of showing your love and commitment to your partner, so why should gay people be deprived of this right? Who are we to sit and judge anyway? Same sex marriages should be legalised as soon as possible, we are clearly living in a backward society which is yet to embrace what society wanted 10 years ago.

I don't think it could have been put any better. :classic2:

What bothers me most about this situation is the outcry from churches (mainly Christian) opposing homosexual marriage.

I feel it is no right of any organized religion to publically oppose homosexual marriage, calling it a sin, seeing as those affected aren't necessarily a member of that congregation.

EDIT:

Loggerheads, what about those who are not religious in the least bit?

I am still able to marry despite my religious beliefs.

I go down with my fiance to city hall and receive a marriage certificate, there's nothing religious about that whatsoever.

 

[CareBear]

I think Marriage is all about religion, it's where the whole idea stems from, I believe. Having said that, if a man and a woman can be married in a civil, legal sence, I see no reason to deprive homosexuals of that right. The "Civil Partnerships" which were being considered in the UK fairly recently sounded like a fairly good idea, essentially giving homosexual couples the same rights (financial/legal) as heterosexual couples, without the perhaps uneccesarily emotive word "marriage".

Noone would question the use of the word marriage for a union between a man and a woman who had a civil wedding, but not a religious one.
Unless you are willing to oust every heterosexual couple that did not marry "in the eyes of God" by saying they can not refer to their union as a marriage, I don't see a valid reason why a homosexual couple wouldn't get the same right to a civil wedding and call it a marriage.

 

[jmiller]

No. :tired2:

No? You don't think same-sex marriages should be made legal?

Are you able to back your opinion up like everyone else, or are you just homophobic?

If you honestly had good reason to form that opinion you would back it up.

 

[Mazinkaiser]

I hope no one misunderstands my take on this, but here goes.

I am a Roman Catholic, I CHOOSE to be one, and I choose to follow it's teachings. Now, I also understand that there are others who choose their own faiths, and others who choose not to believe at all. I respect that, that's free will. I am more than happy to explain why I believe what I do and why I think you should believe the same thing, but I am not going to shove it down your throat if you don't want to hear it.

Now, about homosexual marriages. The Christian Bible is adamantly clear that homosexual acts (but NOT homosexuals) are an abomination. Hence, FOR ME, it is only right for Christians to impose ON OURSELVES this rule. What do I mean? I mean if a priest sodomizes someone, heck, we kick the @)$(*@#)(* out. If a couple demands a Christian marriage for a homosexual couple, we politely say no.

But, in a SECULAR world, there are people who choose NOT to believe, for reasons of their own. Like my best friend from high school, they do not choose to be bound by the Bible or Church teachings. THAT must be respected also. That's why me and my pal are still friends despite our polar differences on so many things. Respect.

Now about the topic, same-sex marriages, in MY religion's and in MY opinion, are wrong. However, I can only impose that opinion on those who choose to subscribe to my religion, not to others. So I guess what I'm saying is, you can make it legal (although I still believe it to be wrong), so that those who have chosen not to believe in Christianity have an avenue.

Okay let me try to clarify this further with examples:

Example A: Two catholic homosexuals want to get married IN A RELIGIOUS ceremony. Answer: NO - they claim to be catholic and so are bound by catholic law.
Example B: Two catholic homosexuals want to get married IN A CIVIL ceremony. Answer: Legally, they'll be married, in the Church's eyes, no.
Example C: Two non-catholic, non-christian, or non whatever homosexual couples want to get married in a CIVIL ceremony - Answer: that's their choice, and I respect it. However, I personally ask that they do not try to change the RELIGIOUS teachings, or demand that the Catholic Church allow them to marry in a religious ceremony.

Catch my drift?

 

[jmiller]

Mazinkaiser,

I understand what you're saying, however not all Christian organizations oppose homosexual marriage.

Take the "United Church", who has allowed "homosexual union/marriage" (depending on laws) for years.

Thus, your statement, "If a couple demands a Christian marriage for a homosexual couple, we politely say no." is entirely incorrect.

It all depends on the denomination.


However, I do agree with you, that an individual has no right to impose their religious beliefs upon another individual.

Just because your religious teachings have lead you to believe in one thing, you still have no right to impose those teachings on whoever you please.

You and your religion can oppose homosexual marriage all you want, so long as those beliefs are not put out upon the public.

 

[Robert]

The problem is.... the State recongizes a Marriage, not a CHURCH. You don't have to get married in a Church to be officially married. Therefore, this has nothing to do with religous beliefs. This country isn't made up of all Catholics or Jews. So what Bush is doing is pushing HIS Beliefs on the rest of this country, which is a no no. The church doesn't have to recognize 2 gays as a married couple, but the U.S. can.

What Bush is doing is very unpatriotic. Aren't we for equal rights?

 

[Mazinkaiser]

Take the "United Church", who has allowed "homosexual union/marriage" (depending on laws) for years.

Thus, your statement, "If a couple demands a Christian marriage for a homosexual couple, we politely say no." is entirely incorrect.

It all depends on the denomination.

Just between us, I really find it funny how the bible can have a blatant anti-homosexual verse (which I will quote if you like) and yet there are some Christians who choose to ignore it. My take on it is, if you claim to follow the bible, then homosexuality is by definition a no-no. If you do NOT claim to follow the bible, then it's your call.

And i agree with Robert in that Bush is trying to impose his beliefs, not only on America, but the whole world.

 

[Robert]

Just between us, I really find it funny how the bible can have a blatant anti-homosexual verse (which I will quote if you like) and yet there are some Christians who choose to ignore it. My take on it is, if you claim to follow the bible, then homosexuality is by definition a no-no. If you do NOT claim to follow the bible, then it's your call.

And i agree with Robert in that Bush is trying to impose his beliefs, not only on America, but the whole world.

I'm Roman Catholic born in Italy. I've always believed in God, 1 God, my God. I also believe that God loves everyone, despite color, gender, or anything else.

I consider myself a Modern Roman Catholic. If the Church's want to disown me as a Catholic, then that is their choice. I believe in equality. I believe in equal rights. I belive that if two men, or two women, truely love each other, then they should be together.

God created all of us, how can God deny his own creation? He created gay men and gay women.

* Note to God: I'm not going against you, but you confuse me. You create them humans, to teach us to treat everyone equal, yet you do not accept them?

 

[Canuckkev]

My take on the thing is, if a couple chooses to form a legal partnership, go for it. Doesn't affect me, so why should I care?

The one thing I do care about is use of the word "marriage". I don't like the idea of asking someone if they are married, them saying yes, then having to ask them "to a man or a woman"? If someone is "married", it should mean to ONE other person from the OPPOSITE sex. I think that use of the word marriage is the accepted use in our society, and see no reason to change it.

 

[Mazinkaiser]

I'm Roman Catholic born in Italy. I've always believed in God, 1 God, my God. I also believe that God loves everyone, despite color, gender, or anything else.

I consider myself a Modern Roman Catholic. If the Church's want to disown me as a Catholic, then that is their choice. I believe in equality. I believe in equal rights. I belive that if two men, or two women, truely love each other, then they should be together.

God created all of us, how can God deny his own creation? He created gay men and gay women.

* Note to God: I'm not going against you, but you confuse me. You create them humans, to teach us to treat everyone equal, yet you do not accept them?

A brief apologetics note:

The Church teaches that God does not condemn homosexuals per se, but the homosexual ACT. For example, I am potentially a serial killer. I may have urges. (I don't, but I'm just giving an example). But if i do not give in to my urges, then there's no law broken (unless you live in a regime condemning thought crimes...) In the same sense, a person may be homosexual, but if he does not perform the homosexual act, there is nothing for God to condemn. Note: i am in no way comparing serial killing to homosexuality, but i am just using serial killing as an example because some serial killers claim "urges" or that it is in their nature to kill.

Interestingly, this standard also applies to GOOD acts. A person is not rewarded for being potentially good, but actually good.

A bit of faulty logic: since God created gay men and women, we should accept homosexuality? (note: personal bias alert! I know you may disagree with me, but follow the logic here)

Hence, since children are born with defective hearts, we shouldn't operate to save their lives? After all, God created them that way...

And an interesting tidbit about me: ultraconservatives (like opus dei) consider me ridiculously liberal for my ideas, and I've been accused of modernism. Yet the real liberals and modernists accuse me of being ultraconservative! so where do i stand?

Addendum: I forgot to mention my preceding statements are assuming that both writer and reader are catholic, as is the case with myself and Robert.

 

[spec]

There are two sets of Law and Justice in the world and there always will be, that which is constant (Religious) and that which is based on the opinion of the majority. I follow both where both apply. Currently the majority are against same sex marriage. For Christians Homosexuality is a sin, and therefore they have a right to fight against it. For those who follow the law of the majority, guess what, your opinion is just as valid as the next guy, so whether you agree with it or not, you cannot say the other person is wrong, because frankly what you think is right is strictly your opinion and has absolutely no justification over the other. This goes for ANYTHING. So now, if your religious then keep on fighting, if your not, just wait until enough people with your opinion can attain power and change things, because these futile debates are a waste of time.

 

[Mazinkaiser]

I think debates are never a waste of time, so long as they are done with open mindedness and respect.

A good debate enables one to broaden horizons and witness others' opinions.

 

[spec]

debates are one thing, one sided, close minded futile debates are a waste of time

 

[VerticalHost]

debates are one thing, one sided, close minded futile debates are a waste of time

I agree with this as well.

Robert, read the Bible and you will see that nobody comes into this world a sinner. So, no God did not "create" a gay person. Yes he still loves them, but us humans have freewill and that's where sin comes in to try and take it over.

This is my last post ever in the general forum. I find this forum to be one-sided, which is fine, I just don't want to waste time in here anymore trying to show the "other" side. :tired2:

So see you all in the other forums

 

[jmiller]

I agree with this as well.

Robert, read the Bible and you will see that nobody comes into this world a sinner. So, no God did not "create" a gay person. Yes he still loves them, but us humans have freewill and that's where sin comes in to try and take it over.

This is my last post ever in the general forum. I find this forum to be one-sided, which is fine, I just don't want to waste time in here anymore trying to show the "other" side. :tired2:

So see you all in the other forums

And your post isn't ones-sided?

Everyone is entitled to their own set of beliefs.

Just because you believe that what you posted above is right doesn't mean it applies to everyone.

I do not follow the bible whatsoever, and never have, despite my family's attempt to bring me up as a Christian.

 

[keith]

Everyone is entitled to their own set of beliefs.

Unless jmiller disagrees with you, then you're just plain wrong

 

[jmiller]

Unless jmiller disagrees with you, then you're just plain wrong

I can disagree personally.

That doesn't make the person "wrong".

Nobody have have a "wrong" opinion.

Don't put words in my mouth, Keith.


Where in this thread have I told anyone they were wrong, based on their opinion, not on fact?