No. Im not anti gay and im not religious, but i don't think it's right to change an institution founded by a religion thats against gays. You don't force white nationalists to accept blacks do you? It's not right at all. They should just call it something else, but not "marriage" When i see people going "they're people too" and "they're equals" i think they're missing the point because it's not about that. The church has a problem with it because it infringes on their beliefs. People say there's no reason why they can't, well i've never heard one reason good enough to violate a religion.
This is simply a claim that religion has more of a right to have everyone adhere to its beliefs than gays have the right to live free of discrimination.
No it doesn't mean adhere to them at all it means leave them alone. It has nothing to do with discrimination in the first place. The institution is presided over by the church, so it's simply a case of gays minding their own business. They are infact discriminating against themselves by trying to be part of an institution that hates them. EVERY religion has the right to stick to it's beliefs and not have them changed by outsiders! Way more right than gays have to just but in on something that isn't theirs just to prove a point, i mean they don't need to be married to make a commitment to each other. Just like feminism they always want to be so hard done by but they aren't. Gays were accepted years ago, no more feeling sorry for them as it's time to grow up and realise not everyone can have or do anything they want "just because". The day the whole world becomes politically correct is the day all ethics and order go out the window!
I mean it's sort of like you wouldn't rewrite the bible or the Qur'an just to make someone happy would you?
As the United States is a country, not a religion, it should be -legal- for them to marry. A church, which is based on religious beliefs, should be -legally allowed- to state that they, as a church, will not marry same sexes, if it violates their own beliefs. As a political matter, marriage is a legally binding contract and should be handled as such. It is unethical to state two people of the same gender cannot sign a legally binding contract.
No person should be left out of a legal matter based on discriminative properties.
It is the hinge your argument ultimately stands on. It's a RELIGIOUS institution not a political one, so im not sure how anything you said is actually a point because none of it is real?
Marriage was invented by the church, it should be upto them obviously.
The government preventing gay marriage for religious purposes is unconstitutional. Remember that little line in there about the separation of church and state? Apart from religion I have not seen one other valid reason that gays shouldn't marry.
I get what you're saying but is there a good enough reason that they can marry?
Why don't they just call it something else and just not use the term "married" then everyones happy and there's nothing the church can argue about. But no they want to but in on it, thats what pisses me off, the fucking with someones religion just to make others happy. I see it as far more immoral than keeping marriage between a man and a woman. It opens the gateway for peoples beliefs to be trampled on.
Okay so your argument against gay marriage is that it's religious, and thus if you are against the religion then you can't marry?
Promising to be with someone for the rest of your life (basically a marriage) is found in many religions not just Christianity some of which accept gays, what if they want a marriage by that religion.
Marriage is something many people do even if they aren't religious and the church has no say in that, why do they get to change the rights of gays?
Some Christian churches would permit a gay marriage; but the GOVERNMENT is stopping them.
AND being gay is less of a choice then a religion, so you say that protecting the rights of a choice is more important then protecting the rights of something you are born?
then don't force the Christians to allow it, but force the government to give gays the same rights as any married couple if they are willing to dedicate themselves like one.
That makes no sense and would be contradictory to my argument. Christians don't allow it, and it is that tradition i support. Non religious people are the ones supporting the gays because they don't give two shits about what they're destroying as they don't believe in it.
Not every marriage is under Christianity. I say the government should allow people to be wed under any religion that will allow them; and then have the same rights and benefits that all married people have. Such as insurance benefits that are only given to married couples, if two people are dedicated to each other for years and one of them passes away the one still living should get the life insurance money. and if they live together and one is dependant on the other to live and they break up they should get similar things to divorce benefits. These are the things gays are fighting for, the equal benefits that straight couples can have, because in some places if your partner dies you get nothing, if you break up they can take what they want unless both your names is on it.
Oh and just a note, I go to a Christian church and my minister supports gay marriage, there are thousands of other churches just like ours who would preform a gay marriage if requested, but some are in places where gay marriage is illegal and if they want to preform the marriage they should be alloud
Church and state are seperate. The only reason not every marriage is under religion is because the church originaly allowed non members to marry due to the fact that they believe all people will eventually find god, and allowing them to marry just helps that. But in the eyes of the church (whom the institution of marriage belongs too) gays can't find god, as he rejects homosexuals.
So you see there is a religious dilemma in this issue that effects not just tradition but gods word. They don't want gays to marry because god is against it (obviously lol), and they don't want to dishonour him.
But, since America supposedly has no official religion, your argument is invalid. Constitutionally, we have the right to follow our own religion as we please. And many religious beliefs see homosexuality as not a sin, so why do it for one side and not the other?
Your argument is invalid and unfair.
Very true. But because the religion that founded marriage happens to be one of those religions that DOES think it's a sin, your argument is invalid.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this debate, you americans do realise that it doesn't exist outside of america right? This is a world wide issue. It has NO POWER ANYWHERE in the world so how is it relevant to this world debate?
That's funny, especially since one of the chief concepts the US government was founded on is separation of church and state.
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seeing as legalizing gay marriage does not prohibit any religions that I can think of off the top of my head, I am unable to fathom why it's still up for debate. Religions can deny it in their churches, sure, but that shouldn't stop the government from giving it the "go ahead."
Thomas Jefferson? US government? First Amendment? They weren't around when the church and marriage were founded. Your destroying a 2000 year old tradition and law by supporting this, just so some gays can put a ring on their finger? It's just self indulgence on behalf of the gay population.
I mean if a gay couple are married i don't see how you could look at that ring and not realise where it comes from. They should forget about marriage and save some self respect.
Do you think gay people should have the right to marry?
← View full post
No. Im not anti gay and im not religious, but i don't think it's right to change an institution founded by a religion thats against gays. You don't force white nationalists to accept blacks do you? It's not right at all. They should just call it something else, but not "marriage" When i see people going "they're people too" and "they're equals" i think they're missing the point because it's not about that. The church has a problem with it because it infringes on their beliefs. People say there's no reason why they can't, well i've never heard one reason good enough to violate a religion.
--
Terranaut
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
Captain_Kegstand
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
lop_of_h
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
poof!gone122
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
An_Unlikely_Subject
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This is simply a claim that religion has more of a right to have everyone adhere to its beliefs than gays have the right to live free of discrimination.
I don't buy it for a second.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No it doesn't mean adhere to them at all it means leave them alone. It has nothing to do with discrimination in the first place. The institution is presided over by the church, so it's simply a case of gays minding their own business. They are infact discriminating against themselves by trying to be part of an institution that hates them. EVERY religion has the right to stick to it's beliefs and not have them changed by outsiders! Way more right than gays have to just but in on something that isn't theirs just to prove a point, i mean they don't need to be married to make a commitment to each other. Just like feminism they always want to be so hard done by but they aren't. Gays were accepted years ago, no more feeling sorry for them as it's time to grow up and realise not everyone can have or do anything they want "just because". The day the whole world becomes politically correct is the day all ethics and order go out the window!
I mean it's sort of like you wouldn't rewrite the bible or the Qur'an just to make someone happy would you?
--
iEatZombies_
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
As the United States is a country, not a religion, it should be -legal- for them to marry. A church, which is based on religious beliefs, should be -legally allowed- to state that they, as a church, will not marry same sexes, if it violates their own beliefs. As a political matter, marriage is a legally binding contract and should be handled as such. It is unethical to state two people of the same gender cannot sign a legally binding contract.
No person should be left out of a legal matter based on discriminative properties.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-3
-3
"As the United States is a country, not a religion, it should be -legal- for them to marry"
The usa didn't found marriage you dumbass.
--
iEatZombies_
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
That's not the fucking point. Dumbass.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
It is the hinge your argument ultimately stands on. It's a RELIGIOUS institution not a political one, so im not sure how anything you said is actually a point because none of it is real?
Marriage was invented by the church, it should be upto them obviously.
The government preventing gay marriage for religious purposes is unconstitutional. Remember that little line in there about the separation of church and state? Apart from religion I have not seen one other valid reason that gays shouldn't marry.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What came first, the constitution or the church?
I get what you're saying but is there a good enough reason that they can marry?
Why don't they just call it something else and just not use the term "married" then everyones happy and there's nothing the church can argue about. But no they want to but in on it, thats what pisses me off, the fucking with someones religion just to make others happy. I see it as far more immoral than keeping marriage between a man and a woman. It opens the gateway for peoples beliefs to be trampled on.
Okay so your argument against gay marriage is that it's religious, and thus if you are against the religion then you can't marry?
Promising to be with someone for the rest of your life (basically a marriage) is found in many religions not just Christianity some of which accept gays, what if they want a marriage by that religion.
Marriage is something many people do even if they aren't religious and the church has no say in that, why do they get to change the rights of gays?
Some Christian churches would permit a gay marriage; but the GOVERNMENT is stopping them.
AND being gay is less of a choice then a religion, so you say that protecting the rights of a choice is more important then protecting the rights of something you are born?
and those are my problems with your argument
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My argument is out of respect for a 2000 year old tradition much bigger and more important than a few gay people who want to wear a ring.
--
lop_of_h
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
then don't force the Christians to allow it, but force the government to give gays the same rights as any married couple if they are willing to dedicate themselves like one.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That makes no sense and would be contradictory to my argument. Christians don't allow it, and it is that tradition i support. Non religious people are the ones supporting the gays because they don't give two shits about what they're destroying as they don't believe in it.
--
lop_of_h
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Not every marriage is under Christianity. I say the government should allow people to be wed under any religion that will allow them; and then have the same rights and benefits that all married people have. Such as insurance benefits that are only given to married couples, if two people are dedicated to each other for years and one of them passes away the one still living should get the life insurance money. and if they live together and one is dependant on the other to live and they break up they should get similar things to divorce benefits. These are the things gays are fighting for, the equal benefits that straight couples can have, because in some places if your partner dies you get nothing, if you break up they can take what they want unless both your names is on it.
Oh and just a note, I go to a Christian church and my minister supports gay marriage, there are thousands of other churches just like ours who would preform a gay marriage if requested, but some are in places where gay marriage is illegal and if they want to preform the marriage they should be alloud
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Church and state are seperate. The only reason not every marriage is under religion is because the church originaly allowed non members to marry due to the fact that they believe all people will eventually find god, and allowing them to marry just helps that. But in the eyes of the church (whom the institution of marriage belongs too) gays can't find god, as he rejects homosexuals.
So you see there is a religious dilemma in this issue that effects not just tradition but gods word. They don't want gays to marry because god is against it (obviously lol), and they don't want to dishonour him.
But, since America supposedly has no official religion, your argument is invalid. Constitutionally, we have the right to follow our own religion as we please. And many religious beliefs see homosexuality as not a sin, so why do it for one side and not the other?
Your argument is invalid and unfair.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Very true. But because the religion that founded marriage happens to be one of those religions that DOES think it's a sin, your argument is invalid.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this debate, you americans do realise that it doesn't exist outside of america right? This is a world wide issue. It has NO POWER ANYWHERE in the world so how is it relevant to this world debate?
That's funny, especially since one of the chief concepts the US government was founded on is separation of church and state.
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seeing as legalizing gay marriage does not prohibit any religions that I can think of off the top of my head, I am unable to fathom why it's still up for debate. Religions can deny it in their churches, sure, but that shouldn't stop the government from giving it the "go ahead."
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thomas Jefferson? US government? First Amendment? They weren't around when the church and marriage were founded. Your destroying a 2000 year old tradition and law by supporting this, just so some gays can put a ring on their finger? It's just self indulgence on behalf of the gay population.
I mean if a gay couple are married i don't see how you could look at that ring and not realise where it comes from. They should forget about marriage and save some self respect.