Your views on Gay Marriage/Gays in general

[TTEchidna]

"In God We Trust" is on the cash because morons in the 50's were afraid of the commies. And if a communist sees the word "God" they'll apparently explode or something. It's a case of religion trying to force itself on the nation through fear.

 

[Kjølen]

Personally, I think "marriage" is a term too deeply rooted in religion. If there is to be true separation of church and state, I think there needs to be a line of division between the civil unions that are used by the government to bestow rights and conveniences upon civil parties, and the spiritual sacrament that many religions perform on couples. I'd be inclined to say give the term "marriage" to the religious organizations who have been using it for ages, but with modern linguistics and cultural mashing, that's left to be interpretable. It may be best to come up with new names altogether.

First, we could have our governmental "civil unions" that grant small parties all sorts of social and economical benefits (familial visitation rights, joint bank accounts, veteran benefits, etc and so forth) for the purpose of personal or business relations. That can be managed by a government license. Next, we can have our "sacramental unions" that the religions can perform. Any religion can decide for themselves what persons can be joined in their sacraments, for their own reasons.

It creates a bit more work for people who want both religious ceremonies and civil benefits, but it neatly keeps everyone's fingers out of everyone else's eyes. If I missed anything, please point it out, and I'll address/revise my thoughts.

 

[pokeslob]

Personally, I think "marriage" is a term too deeply rooted in religion. If there is to be true separation of church and state, I think there needs to be a line of division between the civil unions that are used by the government to bestow rights and conveniences upon civil parties, and the spiritual sacrament that many religions perform on couples. I'd be inclined to say give the term "marriage" to the religious organizations who have been using it for ages, but with modern linguistics and cultural mashing, that's left to be interpretable. It may be best to come up with new names altogether.

I wouldn't be totally against having non-religious civil unions, but the homosexual community would probably not be happy with this until the word "marriage" is labeled on it so it wouldn't work out

 

[Kjølen]

I wouldn't be totally against having non-religious civil unions, but the homosexual community would probably not be happy with this until the word "marriage" is labeled on it so it wouldn't work out

Well, people would see that as trying to force religious institutes to do things that they have no requirement to do. We need more in depth study on the term "marriage" to see whether or not it came from religious roots or was mostly used in a religious setting throughout history to justify who should have claim over the term. And besides, there are some religious institutes that would perform a homosexual marriage, so I don't see the problem there. If the big party is all they want, that can easily be arranged.

 

[pokeslob]

Well, people would see that as trying to force religious institutes to do things that they have no requirement to do. We need more in depth study on the term "marriage" to see whether or not it came from religious roots or was mostly used in a religious setting throughout history to justify who should have claim over the term. And besides, there are some religious institutes that would perform a homosexual marriage, so I don't see the problem there. If the big party is all they want, that can easily be arranged.

lets see here, accoridng to wikipedia...

The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.[14]

so really no one knows for sure were it came from

 

[Kjølen]

lets see here, accoridng to wikipedia...

The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.[14]

so really no one knows for sure were it came from

Yeah I looked at Wikipedia too, but for a topic as important as this I think there needs to be better sources. In the case that we really don't know where it came from, I'd have to say give it to the institutes that have used it the most throughout history: individual religions.

However, (and this is just my personal opinion) if we really have nothing else to argue for than semantics of the words and not the actual topic, then I'd say we're getting pretty petty.

 

[Fig]

Whether or not marriage began as a religious matter, what can be said with good confidence is that marriage had become a legal matter before it became part of Abrahamic religions. So Jews, Christians and Muslims can kindly stop acting like they have a legitimate claim to marriage compared to governments.

That's because Judaism, even if you play really in their favor (eg, recognizes Abraham's discussion with God, as opposed to Moses revealing the Torah, as the proper starting point of Judaism), and EVEN if you agree to play by their mythical rules (and not by what critical scholars say), starts basically around 2000 BC at the earliest (1300BC-ish if you use Moses, anywhere between 1200BC and 500BC basically with the critical scholars).

Compare with the code of Ur-Nammu, circa 2100-ish BC:

Numbers are articles. Translation is that given on Wiki, but I've found sensibly the same elsewhere.
# 4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
# 5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
# 6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
# 7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
# 9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver. (6)
# 10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver. (7)
# 11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver. (8)
# 14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver. (11)
# 15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought. (12)

Hey, would you look at that! Laws that (Gasp) give a legal status to marriage! Before Abraham was even a glint in his parents' eyes.

I particularly like article 11. Note the wording. Without there having been any marriage contract.

Marriage contracts were a legally recognized item back in 2100 BC or so.

 

[Dictionary]

Whether or not marriage began as a religious matter, what can be said with good confidence is that marriage had become a legal matter before it became part of Abrahamic religions. So Jews, Christians and Muslims can kindly stop acting like they have a legitimate claim to marriage compared to the State.

That's because Judaism - EVEN if you go very early (eg, start them at Abrham rather than at Moses revealing the Torah), and even if you go by the myth, rather than by critical analysis (which puts the start of Jewish Monotheism as we know it somewhere between 1000-500BC), start around 2000-ish BC. There are contemporary and even earlier legal codes which contain provisions recognizing marriage as a distinct legal status.

Indeed. Marriage as a legal institution was around far before any religious definition of marriage. Mesopotamian marriage is a good example of this.

 

[Fig]

Well, technically we can't say this, since the Mesopotamians had their own religions.

What we can say is that marriage as a legal institution predates marriage as a judeo-christian institution.

 

[Dictionary]

Oh yes, I know that Mesopotamia had their own religious beliefs; what I meant was that marriage was more legal than religious in nature back then.

 

[Kjølen]

I still say separate civil unions and spiritual sacraments would be the best for all parties involved. At least that way, no one would be talking about (il)legalizing gay marriage and pissing off one group or another, anymore.

 

[xRubyx]

Well personaly I think that everyone has the right to be with the one they love, and if they want to marry, then let em, oh and sorry to intrude on this.

 

[TTEchidna]

Think of it this way.

"We're getting married!" That gives off a vibe of happiness. People tell their friends at work, their family, everything. Everyone gets excited, congratulates the couple, then the ceremony goes down, mostly legally, and religiously only to the point that the couple itself wishes.

"We're getting a civil union!" Doesn't... sound fun. Sounds incredibly boring. In fact, it sounds like paying taxes. No one likes that. Not at all. You don't get any excitement out of that. You just go to the courthouse, sign some papers, and ta-daa.

And judging by the sheer fact that supposedly these civil unions would have the same rights as "marriages" under the law, just makes it ridiculous to call it anything but marriage. But remember, last time we said stuff would be completely equal despite being mutually exclusive, it was abused and things ended up not equal at all.

 

[TheArsenalRisen]

Basically...

We're all human. Who we love is who we love and why should that make such a freaking difference? If a woman loves another woman, or a man loves another man, why does this immediately exclude? As humans, we should all have the same rights. And I cannot believe we still haven't evolved enough to know this by now. It's what's in the heart, guys, the heart.

All ya need is love...!

 

[Legacy]

True that, Dark Master. I can't really see how disallowing people who truly love each other from marrying is even something people should want to do...I mean even if you are against homosexuality for whatever reason, why should you even care what they do?

Gay people, straight people, fat people, disabled people, people of all races...we're all essentially the same. We're all human and we all deserve to be happy. Period.

 

[Kjølen]

Well, this is sort of mutually exclusive to the entire topic, but it's sort of been a pet peeve of mine: Your sexuality shouldn't change how or who you can love. As a heterosexual man, there are other heterosexual and homosexual men that I love. It's not any different than the heterosexual or the homosexual women that I love. It shouldn't change if I were homosexual, either. What people forget is that your sexuality has nothing to do with love at all. I also don't think people should parade their sexuality around, which includes massive amounts of PDA, simply because I think sexual matters should be kept out of the public. I'm sure the general public isn't interested in know in "what kind of girls I'd fuck" so I wouldn't be making out disgustingly on a park bench with one. This goes for all people of all sexuality, in my opinion. I suppose the bottom line of this post is: I think sex should be private in all forms, and is mutually exclusive from love.

Back on topic:

TTEchidna: No, a "civil union" doesn't sound very fun at all. Yes, "marriage" sounds very happy. However, this works for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. If the couple wants a big celebration with a party and cake, then they should probably say they're getting married, and have the ceremony. Many marriage ceremonies aren't even religious anymore, so it works for everyone. If they want a religious ceremony, well it depends on the willingness of the religion they want to get married into, and there is not much we can do about that.

 

[shining-Celebi]

Didn't the bible say not to judge and love thy brethren or some stuff like that?

God wouldn't want hate and prejudice against people which is why if God hated gays he would destroy them himself.

Spartans were all homo. So there, the greatest military arsenal was gay.

 

[mces0421]

I have lots of gay and bisexual friends.
But I am not in favor of this same sex
marriage. I think this is too much.
I have personal belief that marriage if for
opposite sex only. Maybe they can call
each other partner but not couple and
a husband/wife.

 

[Covet]

Kjølen, My mom feels the same way you do, however "separate but equal" ≠ equality. Especially with today's definition of marriage.

---------------------------------------

For all those who have said they are against it strictly because they believe it's for a man/woman only, please tell me why? In today's society, what is the purpose of keeping the definition of marriage to a man/woman only?

- For procreation? The world is overpopulated and there are many children "in the system" who need loving homes.

- For the sanctity of "marriage?" What about the 5-minute Hollywood marriages or the people who have been married several times or the people who marry for money/status?

- Because God says so? Didn't Jesus treat everyone as equals? One of his closest friends (and rumored to be his lover) was a prostitute. Are you saying that homosexuals have less rights than a prostitute?

- Because the Bible says so? How many things that the Bible says to do, do you actually do today? I'm not even talking in the religious sense, but the "how to live" sense. Like, eating shellfish.

- Because it's a religious ceremony? What about Atheists that get married?

Please answer all of these questions because, frankly, you have no "good" arguments against allowing gay marriage. The ONLY problems people have are their own homophobia or falling back on the Bible as evidence. In either case, it should not influence any American's right to be equal.

 

[$aturn¥oshi]

Please answer all of these questions because, frankly, you have no "good" arguments against allowing gay marriage. The ONLY problems people have are their own homophobia or falling back on the Bible as evidence. In either case, it should not influence any American's right to be equal.

Here, here!