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.
As I stated in my argument, the churches should be able to say no if it is against their beliefs, therefore making it up to them. -Politicians- should have NO authority in making marriage illegal for any individuals.
Marriage should be up to the individual church, as many churches do not share the same belief that marriage is between one man, one woman. The 'Church' is supposed to be separated from the 'State', which means it should not be 'illegal' for any individual to marry- specifically because it's not political.
Therefore, gay marriage should be deemed legal, while still not interjecting the laws of freedoms to choose what to/not to do in a given religion.
Do you think gay people should have the right to marry?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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.
--
iEatZombies_
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
As I stated in my argument, the churches should be able to say no if it is against their beliefs, therefore making it up to them. -Politicians- should have NO authority in making marriage illegal for any individuals.
Marriage should be up to the individual church, as many churches do not share the same belief that marriage is between one man, one woman. The 'Church' is supposed to be separated from the 'State', which means it should not be 'illegal' for any individual to marry- specifically because it's not political.
Therefore, gay marriage should be deemed legal, while still not interjecting the laws of freedoms to choose what to/not to do in a given religion.