Gay Marriage

[jmcev]

marriage is gay.

[Ap0ca1yps3]

I vote against gay marriage. However all for Civil Union so that same sex partners receive the same recognition of married couples.

Although my opinion may seem confusing, it is based on the fact that Marriage is a religious sacrament that as the 'good book' states is between a man and a woman. Politicians do not have the power to re-write religion.

On that note, I see no reason why from a human rights perspective, that same sex couples should not be entitled to the same governmental & legal recognition and benefits that married couples do.... Just don't call it marriage.

[RogerTheIncredible]

The word wasn't used until the middle ages...

[Ap0ca1yps3]

The word wasn't used until the middle ages...

The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

OK, the term 'Marriage' was not mentioned here, however as a Catholic, the definition is clear. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way discriminating against gay unions as such, and I support the rights of gay couples that wish to commit to each other. But as far as a religious recognition of union is concerned, Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. My point being is that politics cannot dictate religion.

[RogerTheIncredible]

So because a segment of society has used a word in one way for an arguably short period of time we shouldn't look to redefine that term for the sake of equality?

[Jez]

OK, the term 'Marriage' was not mentioned here, however as a Catholic, the definition is clear. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way discriminating against gay unions as such, and I support the rights of gay couples that wish to commit to each other. But as far as a religious recognition of union is concerned, Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. My point being is that politics cannot dictate religion.

Your argument is flawed on a number of levels:

First of all, simply because your religion recognises a certain type of marriage does not extend that same view to every religion. Like it or not there are a number of religions and even Christian groups out there that perform and support gay marriages. Unitarian universalists, quakers, episcopalians etc. If your particular brand of dogma prohibits gay marriage, then don't marry another person of the same gender, but it is not a valid argument for withholding marriage from others in a secular society.

Moreover, as an atheist, I couldn't care less what your religion or anyone else's religion says about gays being married. Marriage is not now, nor has it ever been a purely religious institution. Although there have often been religious overtones to the ceremony and the institution, economic and political motives have always been a strong force within the social vehicle of marriage.

I can think of no easier way to ensure that gay couples are not discriminated against legally or economically than to simply extend the franchise of marriage to them. Civil unions have the potential to fall short of real equality. To quote a US court opinion from Massachusetts:

"The dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."

[Zombywolf]

Hm...why don't we create a church thats more or less identical to ... religion 'x' but it allows gay marriage?

after all, pretty much every other varient of christianity/catholicism did that because they wanted their own little things...

[Ap0ca1yps3]

So because a segment of society has used a word in one way for an arguably short period of time we shouldn't look to redefine that term for the sake of equality?

A segment? Marriage (or variants of) as a term is referred to in most if not all religions whichever they may be. I may be wrong, but I must confess I've never been aware of a Muslim (Islam) same sex union, nor a Buddhist same sex union,Catholic or Hindu for that matter...

If you were to consider these (and other religions not mentioned), which would represent a vast majority of the global population, I would be reluctant to refer to this as a mere segment.

However, semantics aside, my point all along has been that 'Marriage' by definition (in whichever religion you choose) is a union between a man and a woman. In no religion have I noted that marriage can be ratified in a same sex partnership. Not my rules, just the way it is.

This is the basis of the suggestion that politics has no business nor right to dictate religious belief. By all means politics can (rightfully) extend equal rights for same sex unions the same as 'married' couples. But by trying to amend the term 'marriage' (which is defined as a religious sacrament), politicians cannot amend religion. They can amend legislation that effects the rights of people, but not religion as such.

If you want to define marriage from a non-religious (Atheist) perspective, then to demand recognition of marriage by definition is contradictory to the (for want of a better term) Atheist ideology.

I am in no way looking to flame a political or religious argument, but in realistic terms, are same sex partners looking to achieve equality from a social basis or religious basis? Social equality can be ratified by legislative recognition, of which I support. If however it is religious equality they seek, it is only the church leaders (of whichever religion applies - and the relative churches as a whole)that can ratify acceptance of such amendments to their faith. Once again, not my rules.

From what I can understand of this issue, is that same sex partners are wanting to be recognised 'legally' the same as married couples, which through legislative change, can be provided and ratified by means of civil union. If they are demanding religious recognition, then the government cannot provide this.

[Helelix]

On that note, I see no reason why from a human rights perspective, that same sex couples should not be entitled to the same governmental & legal recognition and benefits that married couples do.... Just don't call it marriage.

+1, your opinion on this topic is pretty much the same as mine except you've managed to state it better than I probably could.

[skitzor]

This is the basis of the suggestion that politics has no business nor right to dictate religious belief. By all means politics can (rightfully) extend equal rights for same sex unions the same as 'married' couples. But by trying to amend the term 'marriage' (which is defined as a religious sacrament), politicians cannot amend religion. They can amend legislation that effects the rights of people, but not religion as such.

this has always bothered me. not everyone in this world holds religion to such high esteem as you. religion is seen as so untouchable. why can't we kick religion out of our legislation and change the meaning of marriage? the argument "we can't change it because it's early meaning was *whatever*" is **** stupid.

the sanctity of marriage doesn't exist. straight couples divorce and re-marry all the time. society doesn't need homosexuals to ruin marriage, we have already done it. I don't see why it effects people so much if the definition gets changed. you don't have to get gay married. and if you even hint at a slippery slope sort of argument I will track you down.

[DarkMellie]

I think we first need to understand exactly what religion you're talking about. Seeing as you can get married sans-religion, through celebrants or your local council, clearly it's not a Christian-only ceremony any more. I'd say that marriage has nothing to do with spiritual beliefs and everything to do with the two people, how they're perceived, how they choose to live and what legal rights it affords them.

[RogerTheIncredible]

How much of the Bible do you believe to be the word of God?

Do you believe in slavery and the oppression of women as strongly as inequality due to sexuality?

[Artful-dodgeR]

How much of the Bible do you believe to be the word of God?

To the same argument, how much of the bible do you actually follow? How is it fair that you can pick and choose one segment, namely gay marriage [Genesis 1:27 or Genesis 2:18-25]) yet ignore another (lets say, shaving (Leviticus 19:27) or women having equal rights [Timothy 2:11-12] or non-virgins being stoned [Deuteronomy 22: 20-21] or cutting off your hand for any sin or stolen thing[Mark 9:43])... The list goes on.

[RogerTheIncredible]

Nice quotes, I was on the mobile so cbf searching for some lol

[Fireslide]

It will happen, despite kicking and screaming. It's just a shame that it's universal acceptance is being delayed by those in denial. I just try and view it from the future, where we'll look back and say, wow people were really stupid back then. Much like we view people who supported slavery and treating black people and women as nth class citizens.

I'd rather everyone got on board and be known as one of the first places that supported it, rather than going down in history as one of the last places that supported it.