gay marriages - Page 8

gothictuesday · 12-06-2005, 09:19 PM

Ok, I apologize. All I was doing in that last post was baiting you, which was wrong of me.

rockandrose · 12-06-2005, 09:25 PM

Tuesday, I doubt the Government gives a flying fuck what homosexuals do behind closed doors.

There are many homosexual partners who live together like a married couple, but legally they are not married. They don't have the same benefits as a legally married couple.

Hence, the main debate of gay marriages is based on the concept of "Adam and Eve", and not based entirely on their sex life.

gothictuesday · 12-06-2005, 09:31 PM

Considering our nation's proud history of anti-sodomy laws, I'm quite sure the government does care what gays do behind closed doors.

Please clarify for me what you mean by "the concept of 'Adam and Eve'". (I'm requesting clarification because I'm not entirely sure that that concept doesn't have to do with sex, since my understanding is that the point of their existence was that they should go forth and multiply like bunny rabbits, which does have to do with sex.) (Also, I don't believe they were legally married, so we're talking about the religious institution of marriage here, not the legal institution.)

gothictuesday · 12-06-2005, 09:34 PM

But by willingly entering into the institution which the government uses to let itself in, and not protesting the instrusion, aren't people effectively giving their approval to it?

rockandrose · 12-06-2005, 09:34 PM

I mean as long as homosexual partners are not legally married and their sex life is hidden. The Government doesn't care.

Shadowed Aegis · 12-06-2005, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockandrose

Hence, the main debate of gay marriages is based on the concept of "Adam and Eve", and not based entirely on their sex life.

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. While certain groups advocating not letting homosexuals marry may have their basis strictly from biblical points of view, the main cultural (almost unconscious as noone comes out and actually says/thinks it) view behind marriage is that not only is sexual relations between the married couple are to be expected, they're to be *encouraged*. How many of us see a married couple and think that they're *not* having sex? I would hazard a guess not many as it's just an unconsious assumption that they are. Now I believe that some groups that don't wish homosexuals to marry just don't feel comfortable with that fact that once they get married there's the idea that homosexuals will be engaging in sexual relations.

Now this view I agree on mostly, but as it came from my anthropology professor originally and the fact he could possibly mistaken, then *shrugs*. Personally I don't mind homosexuals getting married. It doesn't affect me in any way and I see no reason to deny them something already given to other sexual preference denominations.

tenet_2012 · 12-06-2005, 09:38 PM

The Bush administration is still hoping for a “defense of marriage act”—oh, I’m sorry, I forgot. Despite that lofty title, that religious-right-approved amendment would just keep gays from marrying, as if we could wave a magic wand and make them all straight so they can enjoy nice opposite sex marriage like the rest of us, and I guess enjoy our nice 50% divorce rate, too! Not that any Congress or administration can do much about our divorce rate. But if marriages need defending, it isn’t from gay people. And there’s nothing in this bill that will help those whose marriages are ending from the pitfalls of overt financial stress.

gothictuesday · 12-06-2005, 09:43 PM

There's actually a legal precedent for the idea that a spouse has a duty to have sex with the other spouse, and I'll try to find a reference to prove that.

rockandrose · 12-06-2005, 09:46 PM

Their sex life is not the main issue, though it is a debatable issue regarding gay marriages.

I think if the debate wasn't based from the concept of "Adam and Eve" or "Bob and Mary", then the sex is not debatable.

There are people who are debating the concept that a marriage should be only man-and-woman. The gender of a marriage is what stems people to debate on the sex life of a gay couple.

If people didn't care that a man marries another man, then their sex life wouldn't be much of an issue.

gothictuesday · 12-06-2005, 09:46 PM

Geisha: But what I'm saying is that the religious institution, the personal institution, and the legal isntitution ought not to be considered the same thing. By keeping them all together like that, you're refuting that. If we disagree at that fundamental level, if we can't agree on what marriage is, we can't really argue after that, we just have to say, ok, we disagree. So there's the end of the argument.

Shadowed Aegis · 12-06-2005, 10:23 PM

Mmmm, fair point rockandrose. I can see how the traditionaly concept of just a man and a woman plays into the debate. Althought I do believe that just simple fear of change has some part to play in all of this.

rockandrose · 12-06-2005, 10:27 PM

Indeed. People are afraid of "change".

rockandrose · 12-06-2005, 10:37 PM

I think those who still live in the era of "Adam and Eve" are strongly against gay marriages.

This year is....2005?

tenet_2012 · 12-06-2005, 10:37 PM

Ignorant heterosexuals are right to fear the gay community. They are the future. Our future. The next step in our evolution.
- Maynard James Keenan

rockandrose · 12-06-2005, 10:50 PM

That's very low of the teacher! The teacher should keep his/her opinions to herself and not take anything personal when grading a student's work.

Bach · 12-07-2005, 05:09 AM

I really don't care about gay-marriage
Let 'em do it if that's what they want, and if the can find a priest that is willing to go against the words of the bible (yes, to be gay is a sin in the christian world..) move to another country if it's so important..

In Denmark, for example, it's completely up to the priest if he want's to marry gays, and the tolerant ones come in great quantity- and so it's really not a problem....

I just don't believe in marriage as per se.. I don't believe in gender roles either, love is love, let it be with that and stop marriaging everything\one you come across..
Marriage have lost all sence and purpose, other than financial...

Sorry for being the one to say it....

Blushing Heliophobe · 12-07-2005, 05:22 AM

This is my two cents worth...

Marriage was originally a ceremony conducted by a religious institution. I think that there should be freedom of religion, so if a certain religion doesn't feel comfortable marrying a couple, then they shouldn't be forced to.

But now, marriage is something you need to obtain a state license for. You apply to the government . That makes it a federal institution.

Therefore, it is no longer within the realm of religion.

Opponents of gay marriage state that it violated the sanctity of marriage, and in their own minds and in their religion, it may well be. Let them have their own opinion.

But unless there is some other argument against gay marriage that has its basis in something other than the KJV, then it is discriminitory of the government (not the church) to refuse to marry either gender.

My two cents!

Bach · 12-07-2005, 05:33 AM

Here is the problem,
You can be married outside the church as a federal institution (in most countries), but not in the curch itself and without a priests blessing(again, in most coutries)
That's the "problem"... The gays wants a christian marriage, but to be homosexual is a sin against god, so there you go...

Blushing Heliophobe · 12-07-2005, 05:40 AM

Well, as a supporter of gay marriage, I would say...

To force a church to conduct a marriage that goes against their religion and they do not wish to perform would be a violation of their right to freedom of religion.

Bach · 12-07-2005, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blushing Heliophobe

Well, as a supporter of gay marriage, I would say...

To force a church to conduct a marriage that goes against their religion and they do not wish to perform would be a violation of their right to freedom of religion.

But because of the many variations of Christianity not all christians find gay marraiges a sin (even though it says so in their "holy" bible)

How can you say that as a supporter of gay marriages anyway???
Doesn't sound that supporting!?

gothictuesday · 12-07-2005, 06:26 AM

All individual Christians should certainly act according to their own beliefs.

A belief that all people of all orientations should be treated equally under the law and a belief in freedom of religion are not at all incompatible.

Blushing Helio: I'm totally with you on acknowledging that the legal institution and the religious institution are two different things.

How many people who are against gay marriage support civil unions? Give it a different name and people suddenly see that it's not the same thing as religious marriage.

Bach · 12-07-2005, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothictuesday

Blushing Helio: I'm totally with you on acknowledging that the legal institution and the religious institution are two different things.

How many people who are against gay marriage support civil unions? Give it a different name and people suddenly see that it's not the same thing as religious marriage.

But they don't want the legal institution thingy (lack of better word) they want the religious wedding as a christian. And that's the problem..

Not that it's any of my buisness but I do believe the christians are right-
They don't want it, beacause it says in the bible that it's a sin, and so, i can't happen..
It's seldom I side with christianity, but on this point they are totally in their right- They can ban homosexuality and their marriages in their own churches as much as they want...

rockandrose · 12-07-2005, 07:01 AM

I agree on the account that has been made that legal and religious marriage approvals are two different things.

I think that even if gay marriages were to be legalised, there will be at least one Priest poking his nose into the political media and painting what the holy bible says.

This is when I think religious authorities should stay out of the political world and keep their damn mouth closed.

There really is no need to complicate the law and religion even more so.

Blushing Heliophobe · 12-07-2005, 08:11 AM

I believe that I can support gay marriages and also support a church's choice to not marry gays because I believe in a seperation of church and state.

It's a citizen's right not to be discriminated against because of someone else's religious leanings,

and,

it's also a church's right to not support what they don't believe in.

I don't think that my moral leanings have to dictate what my ethical leanings are.

In other words...whatever floats your boat.

Whatever sinks your ship.

Blushing Heliophobe · 12-07-2005, 08:14 AM

Oh - forgot something, sorry about the double post.

If a gay couple wishes to marry in a church that doesn't support gay marriage - well, sorry to say it but tough titty.

It's that church's right not to marry someone if they don't want to.

By the way, it's not just gay marriages that they will refuse to perform. My former church wouldn't marry my husband and I because he wasn't...well let's say he wasn't remotely Christian at the time.

I stopped going to that church and I got married in the courthouse.

That's the way it goes.