Yup, that old bugbear.

Will somebody help me out here, and explain the position against? I firmly believe that nobody does anything for the sole purpose of being an asshole, but I can't for the life of me figure out why there is an issue. I don't get it. Can someone explain it to me?

~Artemis

It is pretty obvious; religion.

I do not see this thread leading to much but either "gay bashing" or "religious bashing", but I'll give it a chance and leave it open for now.

But... If it's just religion, why is it a political issue?

Aren't politics supposed to be divorced (pardon the pun) from religion?

:/

~Artemis

i have to say that it is BS, people have the right to marry and be with whom ever the f that they want. I get your point though, there is no need for it to be a political matter, it is stupid, really i have to say people so say f religion and mind there own business and let people be with whom ever..

(Sorry i have had a very bad birthday and being treated like crap from the girl i loves parents. So i'm venting a bit on top of being an emotional wreck..well anyways smile )

That's the thing, polotics are supposed to be separated from religion, but in many governments [and in my view America is a big culprit] one religion dominates and that affects judgement. Just like with abortion, gay marriage is viewed through belief not in an unbiased way.

I personally don't see the difference in two males or two females being married to two people of the opposite sex. I suppose that marriage can be a religious thing, but if that isn't allowed in religious places, a court marriage should be. People are people, marriage is meant to show love, people love who they love. Shouldn't marriage be available no matter who the two who are to be wed?

yeps i'd say so

Why politics? Well it's supposedly a marriage by law as well as "by God."

I'm unsure where I stand at the moment, I could settle for civil ceremonies, but often I've said that religious beliefs, however much you disagree with them should be honoured and respected, but I do believe any man should be able to be joined in union with another man, or woman with another woman etc. For now I think civil ceremonies are a perfectly acceptable substitute.

Unfortunately I find in these debates there end up being religious people who end up shoving there beliefs down people's throats or referring to the bible every other second with scripture, when there's no proof the bible has any significant standing. For me it's a book designed to give people hope/faith and morals on how to live their life, nothing more.

Then you'll get the some religious bashing from the other side, or religious fanatics saying "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!!!!1111111", grow up.

Posted By Paddy on 17th Feb 08 at 6:18am

 

Yup, that old bugbear.

Will somebody help me out here, and explain the position against? I firmly believe that nobody does anything for the sole purpose of being an asshole, but I can't for the life of me figure out why there is an issue. I don't get it. Can someone explain it to me?

~Artemis

Firstly we have to find out if you're talking about UK or US.

In the UK it's not marriage, it's a civil partnership. It's recognised the same as a marriage, but I don't think it has the same religious implications as an actual marriage.

Therefore there are few people religiously against this.

However, in US, I don't know the system.

Obviously it is a religious deal, depending on whom the political leader is, they will decide based of their religion. (Christians believe the world started with a man and a woman, thus, no gays.)

Posted By Jake on 17th Feb 08 at 5:36pm

 

Obviously it is a religious deal, depending on whom the political leader is, they will decide based of their religion. (Christians believe the world started with a man and a woman, thus, no gays.)

It's not though. A civil partnership IS NOT religious in the same way as marriage. Therefore there is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

I'm not saying that peoples' crowded religious views will not affect this, but what I'm saying is, in the way the church is involved associated, it has nothing to worry about.



understand?

Well, PSSHHH

I believe it is illegal in the US.

I am a Christian, so my religion will naturally give a biased answer, but not much.

I believe that, as Wrighty said, civil ceremonies are fine. However, I do not like that Stephen Harper made religious ones legal as well. I have no problem with homosexuality, bisexuality, or any of that; many of my friends are bisexual/gay. The only thing I don't like is that our leader is trying to change our religious belief system.

As I said, I have no problem with two men/two women getting a civil marriage; if they love each other and want to spend their lives together, then I have nothing against it. I just don't appreciate our own government trying to impede on peoples' religious beliefs.

Posted By Marc on 17th Feb 08 at 6:18pm

 

I believe it is illegal in the US.

I am a Christian, so my religion will naturally give a biased answer, but not much.

I believe that, as Wrighty said, civil ceremonies are fine. However, I do not like that Stephen Harper made religious ones legal as well. I have no problem with homosexuality, bisexuality, or any of that; many of my friends are bisexual/gay. The only thing I don't like is that our leader is trying to change our religious belief system.

As I said, I have no problem with two men/two women getting a civil marriage; if they love each other and want to spend their lives together, then I have nothing against it. I just don't appreciate our own government trying to impede on peoples' religious beliefs.

I agree, see I would type that all, but I'm a bit lazy.

So far, I've gotten responses that follow my basic thoughts:

1. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be left out of government.
2. The government should recognize and make accommodations for those who choose to spend their lives together.
3. A civil union would be a perfectly fine substitute to marriage, so long as there is equality and non-discrimination between the two.

I personally have no desire to be married. Why would I? That's like a straight boy arguing that he should be allowed into a gay bar. Should he? Maybe, maybe not. The real issue is, why would he want to?

I never understood why gay/bi/lesbian/transgender people wouldn't accept civil unions, and why religion and government wouldn't give it to them (in some areas).

So I guess I'm still confused.

What's the big deal, again?

~Artemis

Quote:

Then you'll get the some religious bashing from the other side, or religious fanatics saying "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!!!!1111111", grow up.

lol. that was funny

You need a member each from the 2 genders of any species to procreate and propagate the species. Thats a simple logic and forms the basis of the origin theory for mankind. Its the same in every religion. Names might be different. Thats because this is what every understands and understood when the religious scriptures were written.

But obviously sexual orientation is trivial and a non-issue when it comes to love, sex, or marriage. Anyone is free to marry anyone else.

A marriage is more than just a religious ceremony. It is an incredible moment in the lives of the two people vowing to stay together till death parts them. Most people grow up wanting that moment in their lives. And that has no religious connotations. A civil union on the other hand is such a formal and "inhuman" way of pairing up - its literally like signing a contract. Psssh. I love the concept of marriage and would love to get married when I find the right girl. I'd love to celebrate our love with friends and family. Wouldn't miss it for anything. Its as simple as that.

Slip, I guess you and I will just have to disagree, because I think marriage is obviously a religious institution. I also think a civil union can mean the same exact thing as a marriage.

Though I'd argue that a lot of marriages go south because a lot of people put emphasis on the wedding, and not what comes after...

~Artemis

Posted By Marc on 17th Feb 08 at 6:18pm

 

I believe it is illegal in the US.

I am a Christian, so my religion will naturally give a biased answer, but not much.

I believe that, as Wrighty said, civil ceremonies are fine. However, I do not like that Stephen Harper made religious ones legal as well. I have no problem with homosexuality, bisexuality, or any of that; many of my friends are bisexual/gay. The only thing I don't like is that our leader is trying to change our religious belief system.

As I said, I have no problem with two men/two women getting a civil marriage; if they love each other and want to spend their lives together, then I have nothing against it. I just don't appreciate our own government trying to impede on peoples' religious beliefs.

Amen.

I had a revelation today, and thought I'd share it.

To be gay is, obviously, outside the norm. It also deals with a sexual issue. Most people find discussing sexual issues uncomfortable, and don't want to think about it. When somebody with sexual tendencies outside the norm (be it homosexuality or any other deviation) it is calling attention to sex, and making people think about it. Which they don't want to do. So they don't like being around gay people, because they don't like thinking about sex.

Which also applies to children- "I don't want gay people to raise children because the child would be scarred" -- well, the child would be scarred if he saw Mommy and Daddy having sex, too, so... it's almost an issue of the demonization of sex.

That's my random thought of the day.

~Artemis

Posted By Paddy on 21st Feb 08 at 12:51am

 

I had a revelation today, and thought I'd share it.

To be gay is, obviously, outside the norm. It also deals with a sexual issue. Most people find discussing sexual issues uncomfortable, and don't want to think about it. When somebody with sexual tendencies outside the norm (be it homosexuality or any other deviation) it is calling attention to sex, and making people think about it. Which they don't want to do. So they don't like being around gay people, because they don't like thinking about sex.

Which also applies to children- "I don't want gay people to raise children because the child would be scarred" -- well, the child would be scarred if he saw Mommy and Daddy having sex, too, so... it's almost an issue of the demonization of sex.

That's my random thought of the day.

~Artemis

So you wouldn't mind if you're parents were gay? Both either male or female?

First of all, I'm not talking about the kids seeing the sex. I'm just talking about them being raised in that kind of situation.

It simply isn't right without having both a mother and a father because that is just how life works.

If a homosexual cannot produce offspring with it's mate, then it is not natural and therefore perverted. Period. Nothing in this world will ever change my mind because of that statement/fact.

Triad, if you can't defend your opinion with rationale, you're neither helping yourself nor me, and, to be frank, your opinion is rather worthless in my eyes. The fact that you'll never change it really only says that, in the event you're somehow proven wrong, you'll still stick to your opinion. And, not to be cliche, that's generally deemed 'ignorance'.

And, to answer the question, I would be ecstatic to have two moms or two dads.

~Artemis

[edit] Re-read what I had written, and wanted to make sure the red text was clear: Your opinion is not worthless because it is wrong (I wouldn't ask if I already knew the answer, so who am I to say what's wrong or not?), but because you can't back it up, and are, in effect, saying 'because it just is that way.'. [/edit]

[edit2] Is anyone else laughing uncontrollably at the ads displayed for this thread? [/edit]

Posted By Paddy on 21st Feb 08 at 2:51am

 

Triad, if you can't defend your opinion with rationale, you're neither helping yourself nor me, and, to be frank, your opinion is rather worthless in my eyes. The fact that you'll never change it really only says that, in the event you're somehow proven wrong, you'll still stick to your opinion. And, not to be cliche, that's generally deemed 'ignorance'.

And, to answer the question, I would be ecstatic to have two moms or two dads.

~Artemis

[edit] Re-read what I had written, and wanted to make sure the red text was clear: Your opinion is not worthless because it is wrong (I wouldn't ask if I already knew the answer, so who am I to say what's wrong or not?), but because you can't back it up, and are, in effect, saying 'because it just is that way.'. [/edit]

[edit2] Is anyone else laughing uncontrollably at the ads displayed for this thread? [/edit]

I am not ignorant in this case at all. It's what I believe because of the simple laws of life which never change.

But since you will never change your mind either I won't contribute anymore.

You misunderstand me. I made this thread to try to change my mind. I'm hoping you can give me an explanation I have no answer to.

But the view you posted above is like me saying red is the best color. Why is it the best color? Because it's the best color. Why? Because it just is.

And, as much as we'd love for it to be so, morality isn't defined by opinions.

~Artemis

Going off having parents of same sex... In my opinion, it being bad for the kid is... BS.

What about the kids who grow up around their dad and say.. his brothers, AKA the kids' uncles? Or grow up with their mom and her sisters? Are they scarred because there wasn't a man or a woman around 24/7 to "balance" it out? Sure they might have friends over once in awhile that's the opposite sex, but honestly, they're not raising the kid.

---

Now, me personally, I'm for gay marriage.. Or civil union. Whatever you want to call it.

It's not so different from the "normal" marriage. Hell, it's probably more stable then the "normal" one in terms of staying together. How many "normal" couples do you see get divorced all the time? How many families do you see broken up because the parents are on the brink of divorce/separation (mine included)? Is that really a healthy environment for a child? That is if the whole "problem" with gay marriages is being based solely upon the fact that gay couples can't reproduce within themselves. But is that really so bad? What about the women who can't bear children that get married? Or the people who opt out of having kids? Are they scorned upon? No. In our world today, it could be looked upon as a good thing. Less overpopulation. I mean... look at China... They can only have one kid per family because of overpopulation.

---

I'm with Arty, I think. I really don't understand why people are so against this. And here I thought with each generation we were becoming more and more open minded.