What do you think about gay marrige?

[Ori]

Do you think it's wrong?
If so, why?

 

[James the Persian]

Yes, if you're talking about religious weddings, no if you mean civil unions (which I don't see as marriages in the same sense at all, even for heterosexuals). I would have thought that the reasons, seeing as I'm Orthodox, are pretty self-explanatory. I don't see any issue with civil unions between homosexuals for the purposes of next of kin, property or even tax reasons - just don't call them marriages.

James

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

IF by gay you mean happy, then no it's not wrong. And if you mean homosexual, then no it's not wrong.

God is love. And we are not to judge others.

Sooooooo, what part of this is hard to understand?

 

[michel]

Do you think it's wrong?
If so, why?

Legally 'sancioned' Gay marriages would have the benefits of allowing partners the same rights as heterosexual couples - to which, as far as I am concerned, they should have every right.

As far as a Church ceremony ? Just how many people have sworn "to be together until Death do them part" - only to renege on the promise when the 'going gets tough'. The Church is aware of this problem, and some Religions 'turn a blind eye' to the original broken promises by offering a 'blessing'. There is something a bit hypocritical in that, from my point of view.:jam:

 

[Engyo]

Why should gay people have any less right to saddle themselves with the person who will make them miserable for the rest of their lives, just like all the rest of us? :bonk:

But seriously, what is done religiously should be up to the specific religion. As far as legalities go, I don't care what you call it but a legal contract should be no different between a man and a woman than between two men, or two women. Equal protection under the law.

 

[Malus 12:9]

I don't see why a fuss should be made. I have no problem with gay or gay marriages.
Everyone has their own rights and why stop the way 2 people feel about each other?
Let them do their business. I don't have a problem with gay marriage at all.

....Unless I was the one getting married..

 

[Pah]

Yes, if you're talking about religious weddings, no if you mean civil unions (which I don't see as marriages in the same sense at all, even for heterosexuals). I would have thought that the reasons, seeing as I'm Orthodox, are pretty self-explanatory. I don't see any issue with civil unions between homosexuals for the purposes of next of kin, property or even tax reasons - just don't call them marriages.

James

I don't see any difference

 

[Druidus]

Marriage under a priest is one of the Seven Graces of God. Civil unions aren't done by a priest.

I see no difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage.

 

[Jaymes]

It'd be pretty hard for me to think it's wrong when I plan to be the bride in one in the not-so-distant to distant future.

 

[Druidus]

You can do that in Georgia?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

It's an insidious plot to bring about the erosion of the family unit as we know it! Prepare now...there may not be enough tinfoil hats to go around.

 

[Original Freak]

...that about sums it up for me.

 

[Fluffy]

Legally 'sancioned' Gay marriages would have the benefits of allowing partners the same rights as heterosexual couples - to which, as far as I am concerned, they should have every right.

Yes Mr. I-thought-I-had-conservative-beliefs .

I promise as soon as somebody presents me with an argument demonstrating the harm caused by gay marriages then I will instantly convert to disallowing them (though they will also have to break down my views on social and economic freedom first). Till then what is wrong with "Live and let live"?

 

[lilithu]

what is done religiously should be up to the specific religion. As far as legalities go, I don't care what you call it but a legal contract should be no different between a man and a woman than between two men, or two women. Equal protection under the law.

what Engyo said.

I agree with IacobPersul as well, with the stipulation that "no religious marriages" for same-sex couples means no religious marriages within the religions that are against it. The Eastern Orthodox church (and others) should never be forced by the govt to recognize something that goes against its belief system. My religion otoh has no problem with same-sex marriages - both of my ministers have entered into them and they perform them all the time.

 

[Jaymes]

You can do that in Georgia?

Who said I even plan on being in the United States at that point?

 

[Loki]

I would personally say that the government shouldn't recognise gay marriage. I don't think they should recognise straight marriage either. I would propose civil unions as the legal recognition of acouple, available to same sex and different sex couples alike, with the same rights and benefits. Marriage should be a religious ceremony, which could be legally tied to a civil union.

So I propose unions for all, but the hoo-hah surrounding the ceremony is for the couple to decide. If they want to have the marriage in a church, then they can, and it's up to the church to decide whether they want to marry them.

So I'm proposing that civil unions become the norm, and that marriage is kept as a strictly religious institution, so if a christian wnated to get married, they could do so in achurch or wherever, and they would be married in accordance with their religion. However, for the legal benefits, they would also have to have a civil union. And what I am saying is that the two could coincide quite easily, but that degree of distinction leaves government recognised unions available to all, and it would satisfy the religious people who believe that God would not ordain gay marriages.

Of course, gay couples would have the ceremony, and if they are in a church which allows it, then they would have the religious ceremony, and they would also have to have the civil union to recieve the government recognition.

It sounds complicated, but it's not. I think it's the future.

 

[lilithu]

I would personally say that the government shouldn't recognise gay marriage. I don't think they should recognise straight marriage either. I would propose civil unions as the legal recognition of acouple, available to same sex and different sex couples alike, with the same rights and benefits. Marriage should be a religious ceremony, which could be legally tied to a civil union.

So I propose unions for all, but the hoo-hah surrounding the ceremony is for the couple to decide. If they want to have the marriage in a church, then they can, and it's up to the church to decide whether they want to marry them.

So I'm proposing that civil unions become the norm, and that marriage is kept as a strictly religious institution, so if a christian wnated to get married, they could do so in achurch or wherever, and they would be married in accordance with their religion. However, for the legal benefits, they would also have to have a civil union. And what I am saying is that the two could coincide quite easily, but that degree of distinction leaves government recognised unions available to all, and it would satisfy the religious people who believe that God would not ordain gay marriages.

Of course, gay couples would have the ceremony, and if they are in a church which allows it, then they would have the religious ceremony, and they would also have to have the civil union to recieve the government recognition.

It sounds complicated, but it's not. I think it's the future.

It's true. This whole gay marriage controversy is confounded by the fact that we've fused a religious rite with a civil contract. Time to divorce the two , at least in the eyes of the law.