Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Same-sex Marriage
Guild of Greeters > General Off Topic & Community Discussion > The Lava Pit
Stephen C.
Please follow the link to vote

Same-Sex Marriage Poll

Refrence Links

What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

Reasons for approving same-sex marriage Report

moved topic to lava pit, as this seemed perhaps to be a better venue - d'rbeh
d'rbeh
thanks for the topic stephen.

i haven't visited the links, but probably will in future. i just never think about it - it's cut and dried to me:

i have no problem at all with the concept of GLBT people marrying or even being together at all...

((( just for the record )))
Lord Chaos
My interactions with gay people over the years have always been cordial. I believe very strongly in live and let live; after all, I'm hardly a glowing example of normalcy.

So, it was interesting to read the well-written article and feel... not sure what to call it. Although I would never judge anyone for their choices, I still have this residual feeling that gay marriage is wrong. Something dredged up from the past. It's a good article, and well worth reading. Very thought-provoking.
Michi
Once upon a time marriage ceremonies were preformed in religious settings, with approval of religious leaders. If marriage was strictly religious in nature and the marriage in question was against the religion, then a refusal to marry a couple could be understood. -Some religions do accept same-sex couples and as long as the pair belonged to such a group, the couple could marry (hypothetically, if only churches made the decision).

Religious ceremonies still happen, but there are now many marriages which are legal and not religious. A legal marriage certificate entitles spouses to certain privileges, opportunities and responsibilities. As a country that supposedly accepts people of different orientations and even has laws to help protect people (to remain safe physically, emotionally, to retain a job) and has a code of "separation of church and state"; I find it interesting that this country (U.S.) has largely based the refusal to accept gay marriage upon the bible and religious-based beliefs.


My parents were together for nearly 10 years before divorcing. My brother and his boyfriend have been together much longer than that. They are great together and my brother has become a better person during his relationship.

My only problem with his being gay is that we are the only two children and the family has all the pressure on me to get married and have children!
Stephen C.
QUOTE (Michi @ Nov 28 2007, 11:42 PM) *
My parents were together for nearly 10 years before divorcing. My brother and his boyfriend have been together much longer than that. They are great together and my brother has become a better person during his relationship.

My only problem with his being gay is that we are the only two children and the family has all the pressure on me to get married and have children!


Here is a sugestion. You could always have surgate mother. It is expensive but that is a option. That is also a option for your brother also.
gaiasmaiden
i read one of the 2 links yesterday and found it rather interesting
i believe that a person joins with the second half of their soul
whether that be man or woman
as a pagan i have no problems with my belief saying same sex marriages were wrong because it doesn't say that
my husband on the other hand thinks like many anti-gays
he will not treat a gay or lesbian like a lower class person but he does think it is wrong and goes against god
but i don't think he will ever change
Michi
QUOTE
Here is a sugestion. You could always have surgate mother. It is expensive but that is a option. That is also a option for your brother also.


My brother and his boyfriend once talked about adopting. That was a long time ago though and now their schedules are crazy. Can't say for sure, but it looks like they have moved passed wanting to have/adopt children.
As for me, I wouldn't mind having children but I would prefer to do so with a husband. Gotta get him first. wink3.gif
Ged
Living in the highly liberal (laugh.gif) UK we have civil partnerships over here. It's interesting how the Christian influence on politics over here (and a lot of Europe) is so different to the US. Whilst Bush and Blair both have very strong faith, they have adopted completely different views on this issue (shame about Iraq). Even so, a lot of effort was spent in making it very clear that this was not gay marriage in any religious sense, but to equate it to non-religious civil services. I don't know whether you have them over in the US, I guess you probably do.

Hopefully the bf and I will sort out a CP next year, we've been together 7 and a half years, so it's probably time!
Etheldred
I am totally in favour of anyone having the right to a ceremony to celebrate their commitment to each other.
Tomala
I have no problems with two people of the same sex sharing a union. I think that's pretty cool. cool.gif
Kaym
This is amazing to me that so many people could be so wrong. Marriage MEANS a union between a man and a woman. For generations and generation this has been the best situation to raise children. If you want to leave sex out of it, you can live together and have every freedom that other people in this country have. But same sex is perverted and shouldn't happen. Now, do I have the nerve to post this. Yes, I do, you stated your opinion and this is mine.
Kon'Dor
It's amazing to me that when someone has an opinion that differs from that of others, they declare that everyone else is wrong. Isn't that a symptom of a Napoleon complex? The joining of elements is also referred to as a marriage and, specially in Europe, a machinist will refer to the joining of two parts as a marriage. Only the audacious or indoctrinated would dare to re-write the English language based on some unsubstanciated belief ( like religion ). The word Marriage MEANS much more than a union between a man and a woman.

According to the Trinity doctrine, God exists as three persons, or hypostases, but is one being. In other words, your God is a "marriage" of three parts that make one whole. So established religion says that to become one, you need not be a man and a woman, you can be virtually anything, even the metaphysical.

Sorry but I personally think logic trumps Holy Ghosts and burning bushes but, by the same token, if that is what it takes to make someone happy, be my guest. I am hetrosexual but I am not threatened by same sex marriages. What fuels your fear?

Same sex is no more perverted than thinking that you are more right than "your words" so many others. Perversion is in the mind of the beholder.

Now, do I have the nerve to post this? Yes I do, you stated your opinion and this is mine.
Robyn
Thank you, Kon'Dor. I was oh so tempted to make the same comment on the definition from the perspective of engineering and technology, as we often use it that way in the automation industry.

From a religious context, the definition is even more complex, depending on not only the "brand", but the time period and context, even within the Jewdeo-Christian frame and its various sects. Any single definition is going to alienate whatever subgroup that doesn't happen to agree with it. I would note, however, that the limited definition being proclaimed so vociferously now by certain people as being "right" is a relatively recent invention.

MY opinion is that Governments have absolutely no right or authority to legislate what constitutes a "Marriage". But a close partnership of whatever sort should have the same privileges and benefits under the law, otherwise that becomes discrimination based upon religion. (S*e*x has absolutely nothing to do with it.) If you want to call such a joining a "Marriage" within the context of your particular religion, that's fine, but the legal definition, as far as rights and obligations within the larger secular world might be more properly called a "civil union", or by some other name for a partnership.

Perhaps we should just require that anyone wanting to create such a partnership be required to file as a type of corporation. Then it wouldn't matter what genders, religions, or other differences are involved as far as the Law is concerned, letting them add whatever form of marriage vows or conditions they choose, as these would have no standing or meaning under the secular law.

The moment anyone dares to try to force their religious beliefs on others through government legislation, that's when I become alarmed! This includes the "anti religious" actions of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, who want to eliminate religious symbols from public places under a false definition of "separation of Church and State." This attitude is just as dangerous and ludicrous.


The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
--Thomas Jefferson

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.
--Thomas Jefferson

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
--Thomas Paine

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners"
-- Charlton Heston

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
--Reportedly from a Texas A&M contest student contestant.
Kon'Dor
Thank you Robyn.

Let me clarify one little thing. I am an Atheist. ( Yes they do exist and please let us not start a sub-thread on that ) but I also subscribe to the belief that everyone should be allowed to make their own choice when it comes to a belief in the existance or non-existance of a higher power. If a person or persons decide that same sex marriage is not acceptable based on those beliefs, they should have the freedom to abide by that choice but they do not have the right to foist their beliefs on others. If a group of believers form a club or a church, they "collectively" should have a right to their beliefs. In other words, the ______ Church of _______ ( fill in the blanks ) may refuse to conduct or believe in same sex marriage but they have no right to force anyone one person or group of persons to adhere to the same belief.

To bring this back down to earth however, we are talking mainly about the use of a word. The word is "Marriage". Marriage may be used to describe a union of two people or things but, the expression "Civil Union" is not exactly appropriate in all the same cases. The words, IMHO, are not synonyms. Joe and Harry got married. The top and the bottom of the machine married perfectly but, the engine block and the cylinder head "civil unioned" without problem, I think not. Hiding behind a word or phrase that does not always cover the situation is a band aid solution at best and does not fix the problem. It also does not afford a same sex couple with the diginity and respect they have every right to expect. To say " I am married but you are just a couple by civil contract" is denigrating a group of human beings. I may not fully understand the genetics or mechanics or the physical and emotional nuiances of a same sex union but, be damned if I will sit upon some self erected throne and look down on those who do. Someone famous ( name and details escape me ) once said something to the effect of " we may not always agree but I will fight for your right to disagree ".

I may or may not agree but I would have no problem with someone who said that Joe and Harry got married, Bill and Mary had a Christian Marriage ceremony in our church, the two village atheists joined in a civil union and the thought of Republicans and Democrates agreeing on anything is just Perversion.... laugh.gif It is their right to their opinion. I, however, would be more likely to say, Joe, Harry, Bill, Mary and two atheists got married and the Republican and the Democrate.... well, best leave that alone.

The Government Has No Place In The Bedrooms Of The Nation
Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau
d'rbeh
it always kind of fascinated me why marriage between people of the same sex should bother anyone else. i mean - why? are they forcing you to attend their marriage? are they invading and eliminating your personal freedoms?

no.

so, the issue of whether or not people of the same sex should not matter to anyone who is not involved. if it does matter, then like kon'dor said, there has been plenty of indoctrinating going on - pushing people to believe a certain way, all in the guise of "morality".

as for separation of church and state, i believe it should be completely separated. unless of course, each township, each local government, etc. would be perfectly fine with allowing representations of each and EVERY religion to be displayed publicly on public grounds. for example, if the christians are able to set up a nativity set, why not allow the wiccans or other religions to erect items/altars, etc. of things that are important in their religion? fair is fair.

Tomala
QUOTE (Kaym @ Jun 30 2012, 12:04 PM) *
<br />This is amazing to me that so many people could be so wrong. Marriage MEANS a union between a man and a woman. For generations and generation this has been the best situation to raise children. If you want to leave sex out of it, you can live together and have every freedom that other people in this country have. But same sex is perverted and shouldn't happen. Now, do I have the nerve to post this. Yes, I do, you stated your opinion and this is mine.<br />


Do I hear someone volunteering to keep watch on every single bedroom in the US? biggrin.gif
Shana
If I might interject a bit of humor...

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
Kinky Friedman
lisilee
QUOTE (d'rbeh @ Jul 18 2012, 03:35 AM) *
it always kind of fascinated me why marriage between people of the same sex should bother anyone else. i mean - why? are they forcing you to attend their marriage? are they invading and eliminating your personal freedoms?

no.

so, the issue of whether or not people of the same sex should not matter to anyone who is not involved. if it does matter, then like kon'dor said, there has been plenty of indoctrinating going on - pushing people to believe a certain way, all in the guise of "morality".

as for separation of church and state, i believe it should be completely separated. unless of course, each township, each local government, etc. would be perfectly fine with allowing representations of each and EVERY religion to be displayed publicly on public grounds. for example, if the christians are able to set up a nativity set, why not allow the wiccans or other religions to erect items/altars, etc. of things that are important in their religion? fair is fair.


I think instead of addressing the issue of wheather same sex marriage is destroying families, I really think that the issue of divorce and remarriage should be addressed. and most of professing christianity will not approch it. i believe divorce destroys more families than any gay couples can do......
Ken Telinome
It has been the case throughout history that governments have and should legislate what constitutes a marriage, because a marriage is not just about sex and procreation. Technically, marriage is and always has been a contract between persons, which is why a divorce is so tedious--it is a breaking of a contract, and the parties need to be compensated for the broken contract.

I am a highly religious man and as many of you know have been studying for ordained ministry (Lutheran tradition) for almost four years now. The idea that marriage between one man and one woman as the natural order, or even Biblical marriage, is false. From ancient times up until only less than a hundred years ago, marriage was a property contract in which a male took ownership of one or more females as his property. It was a monetary contract with terms and conditions. The purpose was to make sure that the human race continued, so a man being married to multiple women was not only acceptable, for much of history, it was the norm (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible assumes this arrangement to be the norm and is only concerned with who the Israelites marry, not how many they marry). Later, Judaism adopted the one man-one woman stance on marriage, but still treated marriage as a property law.

We have come a long, long way from Biblical marriage. Except where it is necessary for survival, polygamy is generally frowned upon. In most places, marriage, while still a property contract, no longer considers the woman to be part of the property, but an equal property-holder. We've emphasized the emotional, intimate nature of nature (perhaps too much), attempting to foster the image of marriage as an image of love, equality.

That marriage has always been a religious as well as a civil contract is a consequence of the nature of society and culture. The distinction between "religious life" and "secular life" is fairly recent. Before about the Enlightenment, there were both the same thing--"life".

Now, however, there is a general separation of the two in many places. Here, I refer back to my earlier statement. Marriage, while blessed by the religious side of life, has always been a civil contract as well. It offers more than acceptance for the marriage, but in the United States of America, for example, there are 1138 federal provisions covering rights, benefits, and priveleges that stipulate marriage as a factor. These are rights, benefits, and priveleges that are generally not available in any other way. It is the responsibility of the government, as the structure maintaining and regulating society, to ensure that these rights are equally available to all.

I am familiar with the Biblical arguments against homosexual behavior, and there can be no denying that the Biblical authors and editors considered homosexuality to be a threat to their society--and at that time, it can be argued that it was. The argument that I hear most often is that if the Bible says it, then it must be followed to the letter. Yet not a single Christian does this, and no honest Christian claims to. To insist that the few references to homosexuality must be adhered to unconditionally while other commands (Jesus the Christ forbidding divorce, for example) are able to be ignored defeats the argument immediately. Another argument must be found.

For my part, I try never to take a single verse out of the Bible and treat it like the whole. The Bible is a collection of stories, and all stories need to be taken as a whole before they are broken apart. The God I worship is many things, but is above all a God who tries in every way to have a meaningful, fulfilling relationship with God's children, whether they be chosen, adopted, or estranged. And contrary to popular belief, God changes God's mind on many occasions, and I am open to the possibility that in this new age with new challenges, it is time for a change.

I am 100% for same-sex civil unions that bestow every single benefit that marriage provides because of the civil obligations I mentioned above. I am probably about 90% for religious same-sex marriage in my own tradition, and that 10% is really a semantic issue.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.