Gay Marrage

---

In reply to:

---

OK, but I wonder if you feel the same way about all of the other proscriptions in the Old Testament. It's not clear that God thinks that eating shellfish is a lesser sin than engaging in homosexual acts. Jesus didn't have much to say about either. In any case, I am glad that you are able to separate your moral beliefs from civil law.

---

Actualy when it comes to shellfish there is a point in the New Testament where Jesus tells the people they are in no position to choose which of Gods creatures are for consumption and which arent, that all are for the stewardship of man. He was particularly reffering to pigs of course, talking to the Jews as he was.

Did you study the bible or something Owain?

It is the states duty to give benefits to whom it recieves soemthing in return. The unity of a man and a woman is beneficial to the state, as it encourages children, thus increasing the states manpower and workforce and tax income. Thus it is in the states interest to encourage marriage between a man and a womanThere is less benefit between the marriage of a man and man or woman and a woman. So should such a union get state benefits (marriage, beyond the initial ceremony IS really nothing more than a system of legal and financial benefits)? Such a couple could have the ceremony...but why should the state grant benefits just became they held such a ceremony? Well if they adopt children then there is definate reason why the couple should recieve all the same benefits as a straight couple, also the division of property is alot easier if the couple is married/civil-unioned, and why should any long-term couple have the same rights to property distribution after split up as any couple? Indeed it is beneficial to the community to have a sensible distribution of wealth after a split up/divorce. And my earlier comment in favour of straight marriage is easily refuted by remembering that not all marriages produce children, thus not benefitting the state or contributing to the nation.But the religeous aspect? Well religeon is the prerogative of the individual, not the state. All but one church in my country is entirely in private hands. Thus its absolutely none of the state's business when a church refuses to perform certain ceremonies on certain people.So what is my final stance? Marriage is important as a support system for making strong families, which are the building blocks of nations. To me it serves no other practical purpose. Culturaly, if people want to do the ceremony, thats their business, not the state's. If they are then given the same divorce rights as straights then that is good for the community (we dont want anyones financial situation ruined through a brake-up). So yes, I support gay marriage, but I want marriage general benefits reduced to just the financial assistance at divorce, but with a system that rewards marriages that benefit the state...an expansion on child tax-credit and the like. That way marriage in itself will mean very little to anyone beyond a cultural thing, while the traditional benefits will be reserved for those that contribute to the nations bloodline rather than those who just spend a fancy afternoon at a church in expensive clothing.

In a modern secular state...how secular our respective states areTo that and what you said in your last post: very well put. I went to a wedding in France, and as far as I could understand what was going on, the couple had a civil ceremony presided by the mayor in the town in which the ceremony was held, and afterwards they had a church ceremony. Their legal marriage was a civil ceremony. The religious ceremony was up to them. It seemed sensible to me.> Britain has a state church but we are more secular in culture than the US, ironically.Vastly so. And most british people would be shocked to hear the was American politicians trumpet their religious beliefs.

so you think gay marriage is okay,but a gay couple shouldn't get all the same benefits?Ohhhh Eddie...

Not to you SYL; my comp is lagging and the back button isn't working!ashdgfuqnda. Anyways, to everyone:I think gay marriage is completely okay. I don't care what religion you are or what race you are, I say it's okay. I don't know why religions find it so harmful. It's not harming them, the human race, or anything in that matter. Hell, there's overpopulation, we could use a few gay people. I wish people, despite their religious beliefs, would just accept people as who they are. It's not very Christian like to tell me I'm going to Hell for I am a sinner. Fuck you, I'll see you there. If I go to Hell, who gives a damn? I don't believe in Hell, only Heaven, and it is not up to those arrogant Christians to tell me otherwise. "God" loves everybody and in doing so must treat us all equally. Jesus was black:D!Anyways, Gay marriage doesn't affect anybody but the 2 persons getting married. NOBODY has the right to step in and refuse this, not the president, not the pope, not "God"That is all.

I don't know why religions find it so harmful. It's not harming them, the human race, or anything in that matter. Hell, there's overpopulation, we could use a few gay people. Religions want the number of their adherents to increase (with the exception of a few celebate sects). Religions need heterosexuals to make babies to keep the pews and the coffers full.

I use to be agaisnt it but now I am not

"So if there is already a separation between the Christian or other sacrament and the state's view of marriage, and the latter does not require the former, why should the state's view be based on what the church thinks?"OK...will try it again. The "state" decided to recognize something found in the church: marriage. This does not give the "state" permission to change the definition of said marriage.This is exactly what the separation between church and state entails...that the state doth not bugger with what falls under juresdiction of the church. The separation of church and state was made to protect the church...not the state. Go back and read the actual documents and understand, fully, the reasoning at that time (not your own reasoning now) and this becomes obvious.The "state" can certainly choose to recognize another kind of union if it wishes to. Let 'er rip. Leave "marriage" alone...it belongs to the church, not the "state".

Nice posts, sexy tess...you've got guts.

It's nice to see you pick and choose to answer questions you THINK you know the answers too. Are you going to scroll up and answer the questions I had for you? Or ignore them as you have done the whole time?

I was hoping you were just leaving this whole thread alone, but since you decided to post:

>This does not give the "state" permission to change the definition of said marriage.

Actually it does since the government decided to make it a legalized thing that is sanctioned by the state more so than the church. Hell you don't even have to go to a church to get married, you can have it done right at the courthouse. And you need to remember the definition of marriage, originally, was between two people who love each other in the eyes of god. So it won't be changing the definition, just enforcing it.

>The separation of church and state was made to protect the church...not the state.

You are wrong both ways. The separation of church and state was made to protect those who are not religious; don't believe in the Christian god.

>Leave "marriage" alone...it belongs to the church, not the "state".

Get over it. No one owns the word marriage. There is no Patton on the word or anything such. So stop acting like the church owns the word, when they clearly do not. People who are not Christians are still entitled to get married. Unless you think these people should also have to get another forum of union since they are not Christians?

I was hoping you were just leaving this whole thread alone, but since you decided to post:

>This does not give the "state" permission to change the definition of said marriage.

Actually it does since the governemtn decided to make it

What would you say to a gay person who regarded marraige as a heterosexual institution? A close friend of mine has been involved in a lesbian relationship for a long time, and when I questioned her about it a few years ago she just said "Ah thats a straight thing - dont want it, dont need it".

"Ah thats a straight thing - dont want it, dont need it". I know gay people who say that as well. If you ask them why they say it's because people make a big deal out of it and make us feel like we’re not good enough to have marriage. So instead of making a big deal out of it they just say “Don’t need it, don’t want it”. But in reality deep down trust me they do. It’s something we all desire; we all want equality. By telling us we cannot have marriage but we can have “unions” make us feel like we’re sub pare humans and not deserving to be treated like every other citizens. Many people in my situation eventually get very hurt by how people treat us they eventually adapt the “Don’t need it, don’t want it” philosophy mainly because they don’t want to be classed with ignorant, close minded individuals.

There's a priest here in Ireland who was excommunicated recently for marrying homosexuals. Maybe there are more like minded preists who just wouldnt go down that route for that reason. I cant imagine those 'marriages' would have been legally viable though.

I think that my friend genuinely couldnt give a shite though, about her right or lack of it to marry. That may be because she has no desire to marry, if she did I'm sure it would be a different story. They already have thier wills made out to sort out the kids and stuff like that, so the legal end is pretty much already taken care of.

I think that my friend genuinely couldnt give a shite though, about her right or lack of it to marry. That may be because she has no desire to marry, if she did I'm sure it would be a different story.Exactly , that makes a big difference. And it's good she has her wills done correctly. Though in the US the family can contest the will and have it changed after the person dies, which I find horrible!

That can happen here too, but only in extreme circumstances and only if the family can prove that there was some sort of mental disorder present when the person made the stipulations they have set out in the will. Their families are well used to the situation, in any case I'm sure they would have a hard job convincing a judge there had been a mental disorder present which was responsible for keeping the family together for sixteen years!I better get off this site now, have to go. I work from home so it's easy to get stuck on the internet all day. I have a pain in my back from sitting in this fucking chair. I'm off, best of luck to you, x.

"And you need to remember the definition of marriage, originally, was between two people who love each other in the eyes of god. So it won’t be changing the definition, just enforcing it."Where in the Bible does it say this? I've been waiting and you still haven't posted where. Why?">The separation of church and state was made to protect the church...not the state.You are wrong both ways. The separation of church and state was made to protect those who are not religious; don’t believe in the Christian god."Actually, no. Protection of religious rights along those lines was so the government couldn't tell you how to pratice your religion...there were very few if any who didn't believe in God in America back then. Non-religious folks in those days were a non-issue. But you are correct in that it protects the church (including the marriage covenant) and not the states right to subvert or otherwise bugger with the juresdiction of the church over its own institutions (like marriage).">This does not give the "state" permission to change the definition of said marriage.Actually it does since the governemtn decided to make it"The government could not have made it because it existed long before the government did. Consider the chronological order of things.Face it...you're fighting a losing battle on this one. Why it's so important to you and others to change the meaning of the word "marriage", that holds a special place in the beliefs of many, is beyond me. It seems very selfish to destroy what another has in order to obtain leverage to gain a greater public acceptance. If this were not the case, a civil union would suffice.

"And you need to remember the definition of marriage, originally, was between two people who love each other in the eyes of god. So it won’t be changing the definition, just enforcing it.">Where in the Bible does it say this? I've been waiting and you still haven't posted where. Why?I have told you many times, perhaps you were not paying attention or reading the whole posts which would again explain why you have never answered my questions. In the original text, meaning original writing of the bible, when it talks about marriage it’s talking about marriage being between two people who love each other. It was never changed in the bible to state marriage is between a man and a woman until they decided to simplify the bible so it was easier to read. They changed many definition and such in the bible when they simplified it. Sadly, the churched changed things to benefit them. Go figure right?>Actually, no. Protection of religious rights along those lines was so the government couldn't tell you how to pratice your religion...there were very few if any who didn't believe in God in America back then. Non-religious folks in those days were a non-issue. But you are correct in that it protects the church (including the marriage covenant) and not the states right to subvert or otherwise bugger with the juresdiction of the church over its own institutions (like marriage).Would you please know what you talk about before you try and preach it here? Some reason you think the constitution and that alike were all founded and based off religion. They were not! Actually they were based off human rights and having equality for all (yeah right). When they implemented a separation of church and state it was done so religion would not interfere with the government, not the other way around. You have your information very much backwards. You simply could not base the “guidelines” for a country off of one religion when the specified country has a very diverse amount of religions. There is no set religion for the USA, as much as you like to think otherwise.>Face it...you're fighting a losing battle on this one. Why it's so important to you and others to change the meaning of the word "marriage", that holds a special place in the beliefs of many, is beyond me. It seems very selfish to destroy what another has in order to obtain leverage to gain a greater public acceptance. If this were not the case, a civil union would suffice. We’re not asking for the meaning of marriage to be changed but it to be enforced “love between two people who love each other”. To me it’s pretty arrogant of yourself to think you are better than we are. We are equal as you are when it comes to being human beings so we deserve the same equal rights, plan and simple. I think what’s selfish is people like you thinking you deserve something special when you don’t. Why should we have to create something that has the same meaning and definition where there is something that’s already implemented in the government? Again should people who are not Christians create their own union? Should every culture in the US create their own special union as well since they are not part of the Christian denomination? I think what you need to face is your own losing battle. More and more people are become more tolerate and accepting of homosexuals. People are seeing we deserve equal treatment and have every right to get married. I don’t know why you think you’re love is better than ours, but I can tell you now that it’s not. Edit:>Actually it does since the governemtn decided to make it"For some reason it cut my sentence off. The government can basically change whatever they want. Like it or not the government regulates marriage, not the church. Marriage is a legalized sanction done through the state, not the church. Hence why people can get married within a courthouse, not only in a church.

Do you think Muslims, Buddhists and atheists should be allowed to marry, thor? And if so, who makes the rules?

thor> there were very few if any who didn't believe in God in America back thenWe keep going in circles on this. I provide examples, you provide nothing. So, once again, there may not have been a lot of atheists (who would admit it), but there were many deists, among them many of the founding fathers. They were not Christian. The did not want the govrernment tinkering with the church, but conversely, they also understood that the government is not an arm of the church. Do you really think that the founding fathers were all fundamentalist Christians?As much as you'd like to believe it, Judaism/Christianity/Islam do not own the franchise on "marriage", any more than they do on redemption, forgiveness, a vengeful god, or belief in the supernatural. All of those things preceded Judaism. Christianity does not own the words or the concepts.Since the government is not a subsidiary of the church, and since our government is a democracy, when enough people believe that same sex marriage should be allowed, it will happen, however you may feel about it.starfish> What would you say to a gay person who regarded marraige as a heterosexual institution?I would say that that gay person does not care about the legal rights and protections that marriage confers, unless a civil union with the same rights as marriage becomes law. Then "marriage" and "civil union" become a difference without a distinction.thor> Nice posts, sexy tess...you've got guts. She said:In reply to:I normally would go with what the bible says about homosexuality, but I can't, because you can't control how you feel and some emotions and feelings some cant keep bottled up and can't be washed away, it should be allowed under law is what I think and they should be treated just like us, they are still people, not aliens or mutants or whatever, they are human beings like us with just different feelings.Saying that in many fundamentalist churches would be an act of courage.