|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:55 pm
I think marriage should be a personal union, joined by love.
Who is it hurting to let same-sex couples take the next step in their relationships?
Not allowing them, however, does hurt people.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:34 pm
Marriage is an intangible bond between 2 people in love.
There is much proof supporting the idea that David and Jonathan in the bible were married, which technically they were but back then marriage was a pact, not a ceremony that friends and family members attended.
In truth, the Church are hypocrites for not allowing same-sex marriage everywhere.
Love is love, no matter what, and what gives anyone to say that one kind of live, i.e same sex marriage, isn't allowed or shouldn't be legal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:36 am
x vampanda x I think marriage should be a personal union, joined by love.
Who is it hurting to let same-sex couples take the next step in their relationships?
Not allowing them, however, does hurt people. Erm... The Christians...? If marriage is a personal union then why do you feel the need to invade into the churches established traditions in order to legalize it? Marriage is just a word. We can get a civil union that holds all the legal and financial ground of a marriage - Let the church have it's 'marriage'. If the official, ceremonious union between two people is that meaningful and important to you, legalities and semantics are hardly going to get in your way. Put it this way: - What we, as humans really want is an ideological marriage: we want our union as partners to be confirmed and recognised. -What we are denied is legal marriage, little more than a piece of paper and a word. As much as on some level, I think homosexuals should be able to get married, simply because we should be seen as no different to heterosexuals, we can deal with that when we're able to walk down the street together without getting the s**t beaten out of us. Let the church have it's 'no gays allowed' treeclub. And when it grows up and no longer cares, we'll see if we still want in. Frankly, it feels like a case of the cat wanting the fish simply because it can't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:04 am
Meeatu x vampanda x I think marriage should be a personal union, joined by love.
Who is it hurting to let same-sex couples take the next step in their relationships?
Not allowing them, however, does hurt people. Erm... The Christians...? If marriage is a personal union then why do you feel the need to invade into the churches established traditions in order to legalize it? Marriage is just a word. We can get a civil union that holds all the legal and financial ground of a marriage - Let the church have it's 'marriage'. If the official, ceremonious union between two people is that meaningful and important to you, legalities and semantics are hardly going to get in your way. Put it this way: - What we, as humans really want is an ideological marriage: we want our union as partners to be confirmed and recognised. -What we are denied is legal marriage, little more than a piece of paper and a word. As much as on some level, I think homosexuals should be able to get married, simply because we should be seen as no different to heterosexuals, we can deal with that when we're able to walk down the street together without getting the s**t beaten out of us. Let the church have it's 'no gays allowed' treeclub. And when it grows up and no longer cares, we'll see if we still want in. Frankly, it feels like a case of the cat wanting the fish simply because it can't get it. It is not like that at all. It is about discrimination. Sure it maybe just a paper and a word if that is all you say it is, but it is that paper that shows proof of their union. It shows that they want to be together for life. (Although nowadays maybe not so much )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:43 pm
Meeatu Erm... The Christians...? If marriage is a personal union then why do you feel the need to invade into the churches established traditions in order to legalize it? Marriage is just a word. We can get a civil union that holds all the legal and financial ground of a marriage - Let the church have it's 'marriage'. If the official, ceremonious union between two people is that meaningful and important to you, legalities and semantics are hardly going to get in your way. Put it this way: - What we, as humans really want is an ideological marriage: we want our union as partners to be confirmed and recognised. -What we are denied is legal marriage, little more than a piece of paper and a word. As much as on some level, I think homosexuals should be able to get married, simply because we should be seen as no different to heterosexuals, we can deal with that when we're able to walk down the street together without getting the s**t beaten out of us. Let the church have it's 'no gays allowed' treeclub. And when it grows up and no longer cares, we'll see if we still want in. Frankly, it feels like a case of the cat wanting the fish simply because it can't get it. I'm Christian. It's not hurting me any. There are many churches that have no issue with same-sex marriage. The ones who do don't have a monopoly on the word "marriage". Besides, civil unions do not afford all of the same rights that marriages do, at least not in the US. That's why this is still an issue. It's not about a piece of paper, it's about being equal. You know, not just sorta-kinda-equal. :/ Civil marriage and religious marriage are already two different things. Legalizing same-sex marriage has absolutely no bearing on what the churches choose to do. Again, they certainly do not have a monopoly on the word marriage; it's political and legal, not religious. Seriously. Same-sex marriage has been legal in my country for 6 years now. The churches haven't been hurt. Your argument doesn't hold water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:43 pm
I agree...Marrage is between to people deep in love...And it doesn't matter if it is a man and man, woman and woman or man and woman...It all the same...
I think it should be legalize in all countries...
Love is blind...Shouldn't humans be too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:15 pm
I believe that marriage is about love, not what people think God intended for us. The government has no right in judging who loves who, as that isn't something that keeps our country running. If homosexual people marry, the USA won't come to a screaming halt. The world won't come crashing down among us. The law was essentially created by some over-religious, selfish retards. (Sorry if I sound harsh there.)
God loves everyone for who they are, gay or not. He was just smart enough to figure out that you need a male and a female to have a kid, therefore, he made Adam and Eve. Not because being gay is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shirtless Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:21 pm
I really don't understand why it has not been legalized. Our country has fought for equality for hundreds of years. People are people and we should all have the same rights to marry who we love.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:53 pm
It certainly should be legalized. Perry v. Schwarzenegger has already deemed it in the California District Court that it is unconstitutional to disallow it on the basis that marriage is a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia had stated the same thing and now Perry v. Schwarzenegger is heading for the Supreme Court on the federal level. This will decide if DOMA and state constitutional propositions and amendments that ban marriage equality is constitutional or not. While I think it's a bit too soon seeing that we'd basically be relying upon a swing vote from one of the judges it at least has a shot seeing that the defendants had only one witness and we have two of the best lawyers on our side.
But other than disallowing us to marry as being unconstitutional for reasoning for why it should be allowed... there's also the facts that it will stimulate the economy, grant many more rights, and allow so many more couples to adopt in states where they've barred unmarried couples from adopting (with the intent to ban gays and lesbians from adopting). Besides, marriage isn't a religious thing, it wasn't even tied to the church until at least a thousand years AFTER the idea of Christianity was even conceived. Even today many of the "Traditional" marriage traditions such as throwing rice and carrying the bride over the thresh hold of the home after marriage was a pagan tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:00 am
x vampanda x It is not like that at all. It is about discrimination. Sure it maybe just a paper and a word if that is all you say it is, but it is that paper that shows proof of their union. It shows that they want to be together for life. (Although nowadays maybe not so much ) Erm... Civil unions show proof of union. and show that they want to be together for the rest of their lives. They've got a better track record than marriages on that account too. Marriage grants no real legal differentiation from Civil unions. As much as we SHOULD be seen as no different, It's a fairly insignificant thing to strive for, especially when you consider the increase in bashings that would result (at least in the short term) because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:31 am
marraige is technically just a word but some people view it as very, very important.
if the church doesn't let you, go to a golf course, if they don't let you stone them.
if your country doesn't let you, leave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:24 am
If the church is going to have their "no gays allowed"
secret treehouse club like we got bored of at the age of 3,
I say, let them.
I'll be busy trying to beat some sense into dickheads that think they can throw a punch at my boyfriend for kissing me in public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:18 am
I can't call you up on any point you made there, But really, what is the difference between civil union and civil partnerships? The legal rights are equal here. It's back down to semantics, isn't it? Unless you think that we deserve religious marriage as well? Marriage was never about love. Marriage is, and always was an official contract, designed entirely around legality. In fact, for a long time, most sects of Christianity condemned marriage for that same reason. Also; If you are properly Catholic, you believe that the bible is the word incarnate, ie: what God intended, is exactly as he wrote. The government makes no judgements on people's love, simply on their right to traditional ceremonies in representation of a legal contract. I don't think that granting legal rights, but denying a religious ceremony can be called overzealous. It seems reasonable, given the situation. Whether or not God loves everybody, gay or otherwise is entirely debatable (and, if you are a proper Catholic, then, utterly false), and altogether too subjective to base a law around, as such, it is based on the only solid piece of grounding there is, the semantics of 'Christian Marriage' - it's definition - an instituted: ordained by God ordained for the lifelong union between one man as husband and one woman as wife. As to your last statements: Adam and eve are not the biblical implications that being gay is wrong, the direct admonishments against it are. Also; you forget: He was not simply "smart enough to figure out that you need a male and a female to have a kid", He created this necessity, he could very well have made the proverbial 'Adam and Steve' able to bear child, or make a man on his own, or a woman on her own who could bear child without intercourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:14 pm
I say just get rid of marriage altogether, ******** RELIGION!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
