• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should same sex marriage be legal?

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Gays don't need to get married, they should have to submit a form stating the reasons why they should be allowed to get married to a responsible office that will decide whether or not it is a good enough reason.

I don't think straight people need to get married either. Do you think straight people should also ask the government's permission to get married too and present their case in favor?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Gays don't need to get married, they should have to submit a form stating the reasons why they should be allowed to get married to a responsible office that will decide whether or not it is a good enough reason.

upload_2019-11-29_14-49-24.jpeg


.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I say yes. I am bisexual, and see no reason to say otherwise.

Yes. Any person should have the legal right to marry (and use the word marriage) another person regardless of who they are, how they look, where they're from, what religion they follow, what their ethnicity is, how they identify, what they do for a living, what they did, what they choose not to do, their political opinions, and so forth....
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Has this ever happened?

To the best of my knowledge it hasn't.

But I do know of many times that religionists have tried to force the rest of us to change the definition of marriage to suit their religion.
Take my home state of Indiana as an example. Mike Pence spent many years and dollars trying to change our Constitution to match his religion. This is the same Mike Pence that Trump chose as Vice President.

Nobody ever tried to force any church to recognize all marriages. They don't even have to recognize interracial marriages, if that's how they interpret Scripture. But Trump's VP tried for years to change the definition of marriage from a legal union to a religious union, and put that definition into Constitutional law.
You may not know about this. Lots of people seem to think that Pence appeared out of nowhere when Trump brought him on board. But I do know him, and I have for years.
Tom
Good point. When same sex marriage was brought in, in the UK, I was amazed to find a number of churches, including the Catholic church, voicing opposition. But since it concerned civil marriages only, I could not see what the fuss was about really.

And, I have to say, there are gay people I have known for years whose lives have been made immeasurably happier by the symbolic acceptance of them by society that civil marriage confers. There is a one guy I knew at Oxford who is a changed man - seems about 10 years younger than he did 40 years ago, when he was trying to hush it up!
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
...Take my home state of Indiana as an example. Mike Pence spent many years and dollars trying to change our Constitution to match his religion. This is the same Mike Pence that Trump chose as Vice President....
That is a continual problem between religion and government. In some places religion becomes the government.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Gays don't need to get married, they should have to submit a form stating the reasons why they should be allowed to get married to a responsible office that will decide whether or not it is a good enough reason.

Nobody needs to get married, everyone should have to submit a form stating the reasons why they should be allowed to get married to a responsible office that will decide whether or not it is a good enough reason.

Or MAYBE we should just allow any consenting adults who WANT to get married to do so.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
I say yes. I am bisexual, and see no reason to say otherwise.
Should same sex marriage be legal?

If something is not legal or illegal, it means mostly, that it's thought to be wrong. So, you are not Free (supposed) to do it. And most people kind of condemn it.

We have:
Freedom of Speech (say what we want)
Freedom of Religion (believe what we want)

BUT

Freedom of Sex is still not accepted

If even priests and nuns do it, one need not be a genius to know that many, many do it. And the funny, or rather hypocritical part is, that they are the ones teaching us it's bad. Teachers should live by example proves to be valuable.

So, people condemn what they like to do. Those must be all hypocritical masochists. So not healthy to condemn yourself (and others)
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Gays don't need to get married, they should have to submit a form stating the reasons why they should be allowed to get married to a responsible office that will decide whether or not it is a good enough reason.
That sounds like a lot of work.

What about the honor system?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well, because it would force Churches to violate their own belief system, if the State forced them to wed same sex couples.
Would it, though?

A church that operated as an anonymous collection of individuals wouldn't be on the government's radar at all. They'd be free to "marry" people or not according to the dictates of their religion without the government saying anything.

They wouldn't be able to necessarily solemnize marriages that would have legal recognition, but if that recognition isn't what matters to them, then no problem. Or they could get a second ceremony done at City Hall for legal purposes.

... so religious freedom of individuals can be maintained regardless of what requirements we put on corporatized religious institutions.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I say yes. I am bisexual, and see no reason to say otherwise.

There is a difference between "legal" and "scriptural" marriage.

Being "married" in the eyes of the law is one thing, but being married in the eyes of God is quite another.

For those who don't care what God thinks....you have every right to exercise your free will. For those who do care what God ordained for marriage the options are limited to "one man, one woman".

Jesus said at Matthew 19:4-6....
“Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

So because it is God who has yoked a man and a woman together in marriage, with a view to creating a family, people who care about God, run the risk of being a law breaker....God will reject "lawless" ones. :( (Matthew 7:21-23)
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Has this ever happened?

To the best of my knowledge it hasn't.

But I do know of many times that religionists have tried to force the rest of us to change the definition of marriage to suit their religion.
Take my home state of Indiana as an example. Mike Pence spent many years and dollars trying to change our Constitution to match his religion. This is the same Mike Pence that Trump chose as Vice President.

Nobody ever tried to force any church to recognize all marriages. They don't even have to recognize interracial marriages, if that's how they interpret Scripture. But Trump's VP tried for years to change the definition of marriage from a legal union to a religious union, and put that definition into Constitutional law.
You may not know about this. Lots of people seem to think that Pence appeared out of nowhere when Trump brought him on board. But I do know him, and I have for years.
Tom

Marriage has always been a contract first.. Seeing it as a sacrament is another dimension.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Would it, though?

A church that operated as an anonymous collection of individuals wouldn't be on the government's radar at all. They'd be free to "marry" people or not according to the dictates of their religion without the government saying anything.

They wouldn't be able to necessarily solemnize marriages that would have legal recognition, but if that recognition isn't what matters to them, then no problem. Or they could get a second ceremony done at City Hall for legal purposes.

... so religious freedom of individuals can be maintained regardless of what requirements we put on corporatized religious institutions.

Of course, there are extremists who would pursue such a sinister plan... Those progressive extremists would be just as bad as the religious extremists before them though. But for some, revenge is bittersweet.
 
Top