View Full Version : Poll: Are u PRO Gay Marriage? Yes or No!
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 04:42 PM
Look, if you want to spend the rest of your life with another guy, go ahead, just show the church the respect of not equating it with one of their sacraments. I begrudge you none of the rights and benefits bestowed upon traditional couples.
Why on earth should I respect that its their sacrament and not equate it to something they don't believe in? They did not invent marriage - like I've said about 4 times now. End of story. The action, the term, its definitions don't belong to them - never did. So why shouldn't something be equated to what they chose to make a sacrament? Just because you decide you want to adopt a practice and make it holy doesn't mean I should have to respect everything you say on the matter concerning that practice now, or say "yes master, I will never use that term in a way you deem undesirable ever again." THEY should have come up with their own term if they wanted it to be all theirs.
Look, if you want to spend the rest of your life with another guy, go ahead, just show the church the respect of not equating it with one of their sacraments. I begrudge you none of the rights and benefits bestowed upon traditional couples.
Why would anyone choose to respect your bigoted belief system? i doesn't deserve any respect.
Kellydancer
06-27-2011, 04:47 PM
True. I wasn't saying the church couldn't oppose it all they wanted. I just think that the lawmakers should not take religion into consideration for this because marriage is not just a religion/church thing. If the church thinks it is/should be, they can oppose all they please. I think they're wrong, but they're free to their opinion. But that opinion shouldn't affect lawmakers, because religion and state should be separate, and legally, marriage is for people of all religions, regardless of whether or not they want to get married in a church. So since the church already has little to do with marriage on the legal front, they shouldn't be a part of this debate, IMO.
What many people don't know is that in many countries people have civil and then church marriages, which I find interesting. In these cases the civil one is the legal onr and the religious is for show. I do not think marriage should be strictly religious because that would be discrimination.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 04:48 PM
What many people don't know is that in many countries people have civil and then church marriages, which I find interesting. In these cases the civil one is the legal onr and the religious is for show. I do not think marriage should be strictly religious because that would be discrimination.
That's really interesting. Is this a place like Denmark where they're largely atheist but everyone still goes to church as a sort of "community activity"?
Kellydancer
06-27-2011, 04:51 PM
That's really interesting. Is this a place like Denmark where they're largely atheist but everyone still goes to church as a sort of "community activity"?
I think one of them is France, which of course is a Catholic (for now)country. It may be countries like Denmark too but I would have to research it more. I found it very interesting because it puts a different spin on it.
bem401
06-27-2011, 04:51 PM
Why would anyone choose to respect your bigoted belief system? i doesn't deserve any respect.
Well, taking something they consider a serious sin and insisting on calling it the same as something they consider a once-in-a-lifetime sacrament is a pretty antagonistic thing to do. Calling it something different would make it far less objectionable. On top of that, the comment you make seems to indicate offending the church is one of the primary goals here.
So? it's your church that is in the wrong, why should anyone try to appease them?
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 04:54 PM
Forget it, Trem. He's clearly going to ignore the fact that religion didn't invent marriage and therefore has no rights to the action/term/definition that should be respected.
Kellydancer
06-27-2011, 04:55 PM
So? it's your church that is in the wrong, why should anyone try to appease them?
What about the other religions that oppose it too, like ISLAM? Or the other Christian religions like Southern Baptists and Mormons? I only hear you attacking the Catholic Church and that isn't fair. Yes the Catholic Church is anti gay but not any worse than most other churches. Besides they are one of the largest charities in the world.
eagle2
06-27-2011, 04:56 PM
Look, if you want to spend the rest of your life with another guy, go ahead, just show the church the respect of not equating it with one of their sacraments. I begrudge you none of the rights and benefits bestowed upon traditional couples.
No bem, I don't want to spend the rest of my life with another guy. If you want to spend the rest of your life getting raped by priests, go ahead, just show gays the respect of deciding what they want to call their relationship.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 04:56 PM
I think one of them is France, which of course is a Catholic (for now)country. It may be countries like Denmark too but I would have to research it more. I found it very interesting because it puts a different spin on it.
Yeah, that is interesting. I'd like to know how they do it in Denmark (sorry, I've just spent a lot of time talking about Denmark in a interesting religious aspect), so I wonder if they're the same. It's odd to think that you would have a church wedding but "only for show." Most people consider that a the ultimate, cover-all-aspects wedding.
Mr Hyde
06-27-2011, 04:58 PM
let it be said that I don't care about churches or their beliefs in this matter, to be honest. Not that I am dissing them...more like, my concern with gay marriage is legal, not religious.
Kellydancer
06-27-2011, 05:01 PM
Yeah, that is interesting. I'd like to know how they do it in Denmark (sorry, I've just spent a lot of time talking about Denmark in a interesting religious aspect), so I wonder if they're the same. It's odd to think that you would have a church wedding but "only for show." Most people consider that a the ultimate, cover-all-aspects wedding.
I'm now curious if Denmark is one of those countries because they are very secular. I don't get having both a civil and church marriage at all. I believe the civil marriage happens a day earlier but still odd. Who would want both? I would only want one.
What about the other religions that oppose it too, like ISLAM? Or the other Christian religions like Southern Baptists and Mormons? I only hear you attacking the Catholic Church and that isn't fair. Yes the Catholic Church is anti gay but not any worse than most other churches. Besides they are one of the largest charities in the world.
WTF? HE is the one who keeps bringing up the catholic church.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 05:05 PM
I'm now curious if Denmark is one of those countries because they are very secular. I don't get having both a civil and church marriage at all. I believe the civil marriage happens a day earlier but still odd. Who would want both? I would only want one.
Yeah! Man, most people can't even handle the stress of one wedding... lol I could understand having two to celebrate in 2 different religious fashions if it's an interfaith wedding... but this is just odd. I wonder why they don't just do one... Do you know if they also have receptions? Or maybe one is considered the actual wedding and one is more of a celebration type thing?
bem401
06-27-2011, 05:11 PM
No bem, I don't want to spend the rest of my life with another guy. If you want to spend the rest of your life getting raped by priests, go ahead, just show gays the respect of deciding what they want to call their relationship.
If the church is so bad, why do you want to call one of your unions the same as one of their sacraments if not to antagonize them?
As far as the priests are concerned, I never had not presently have any contact with them and essentially no longer attend church because I object to some of the teachings and everything related to the behavior you cite.
It just seems that if a gay union is given all the same rights and benefits as a traditional marriage, why is it so important to call it a "marriage" if a certain piece of the population have a problem with it?
It's not one of their sacraments, marriage was around long before the church. Nobody wants to call it marriage just so they can be like the catholics.
firemaiden04
06-27-2011, 05:19 PM
The good thing about this thread is it's given some new people to add to my "ignore" list ::)
There's no point arguing with bigots. They're bigots because their parents are bigots, or their friends are bigots, or their church "family" are bigots, and they just fell in with them rather than form their own opinions. Or they're those secretly gay homophobic people, which is entirely possible. In any case, why bother debating? They have to admit there's a problem with their inability to be objective and accept differences in people in order to let go of their prejudices, and I don't think that's going to be happening in this thread. So fuck it. Let them go be bigots and go out of their way to bash perfectly nice people they've never met before, people who never hurt anybody, and try like hell to make them second-class citizens and deny them rights, simply because of a fear of what they could never possibly understand.
bem401
06-27-2011, 05:20 PM
It's not one of their sacraments, marriage was around long before the church. Nobody wants to call it marriage just so they can be like the catholics.
But marriage has always been between a man and a woman for time immemorial and now on the tails of the sexual revolution of 40 yrs ago, you want to change all that?
Yes. Why is that so hard to understand? it doesn't affect me or anyone else what they chose to do, so why would i be against it? Lots of things have changed from before, most of the time it is for better.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 05:27 PM
But marriage has always been between a man and a woman for time immemorial and now on the tails of the sexual revolution of 40 yrs ago, you want to change all that?
Actually, it hasn't. Marriage was often between a man and several women, or a man and woman who had many men on the side of her husband. And as far as gay marriage is concerned - as far back as ancient Rome and Egypt, same-sex couples were being legally recognized, same as heterosexual couples. It may not have been common but it was there. The idea of homosexual couples being married is not novel - it's just novel to our country that doesn't like to know its history of marriage before they start arguing about it. If you're so concerned about "the way things were way back when" then you should be all for gay marriage and letting them call it whatever they want. Marriage and gay marriage existed long before the church decided to deem marriage a sacrament.
bem401
06-27-2011, 05:29 PM
Yes. Why is that so hard to understand? it doesn't affect me or anyone else what they chose to do, so why would i be against it? Lots of things have changed from before, most of the time it is for better.
Because gay unions contradict the very definition of the word "marriage". Why is that so hard to understand? Afford such unions all the civil rights and benefits, just don't call it the same as a Christian sacrament. I bet you'd object to things done that might offend Muslims, minorities, or gays, why not to things offensive to Christians and/or conservatives, especially when no one is being short-changed benefit-wise in the process?
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 05:31 PM
Because gay unions contradict the very definition of the word "marriage".
But they don't. As I've pointed out several times. Why is that so hard to understand?
bem401
06-27-2011, 05:35 PM
But they don't. As I've pointed out several times. Why is that so hard to understand?
The reason they put the modifier "same-sex" in front of it is because it does contradict the conventional definition of the word "marriage". I've never seen a traditional marriage modified by "different-sex".
4everresolutions
06-27-2011, 05:36 PM
This thread is making me very grateful I was raised in Canada, by two people who were open minded and understood the concepts of equality and human rights.
Stop using Catholicism to defend your stance on Gay Marriage. It has nothing to do with the Church. It's already been pointed out several times; The church did not create 'Marriage', it's been around for along time.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 05:39 PM
The reason they put the modifier "same-sex" in front of it is because it does contradict the conventional definition of the word "marriage". I've never seen a traditional marriage modified by "different-sex".
They put same-sex to differentiate it. Commonly, marriage is used to refer to heterosexual marriage since that's the most common. That's why when people are talking about homosexuals, they often put "same-sex" in front of it to make it a point that they're talking about homosexuals, not heterosexuals. But you don't need the term "same-sex" in front of the word. People talk about "should same-sex marriage be legal" instead of "should marriage be legal" because there is a form of marriage already legal - heterosexual marriage - so that wording wouldn't make sense. This is really just a poor argument all around - come on, man.
And you've still completely ignored about 5 posts in which I say that religion did not invent marriage and has no rights to the action/term/definition. The definition has been changed a million times - as I've also pointed out and showed that homosexual marriage is nothing new - why are we supposed to back off once the church decides to make it a sacrament?
4everresolutions
06-27-2011, 05:41 PM
The reason they put the modifier "same-sex" in front of it is because it does contradict the conventional definition of the word "marriage". I've never seen a traditional marriage modified by "different-sex".
Well, I suppose our 'conventional definitions' vary, but....
One of the reasons people say "Same-sex Marriage" when they're either arguing for, or against it.
If someone started going on about how "Marriage" was against the church/not right/etc, no one would have a freaking clue what they were talking about. You have to put "Same-sex" in front of it so people know what you're actually debating/discussing/etc.
Up here in Canada, marriage is just....marriage. Regardless of gender. No one says "Oh, Mary and Lucy got same-sex married last week". The only reason the modifier exists is becasue people are still fighting for equality.
Y'know, kinda how there were the Colored-folk Water-fountains, and then just the water fountains?
lestat1
06-27-2011, 05:44 PM
There wasn't an option for my position. I'm strongly opposed to the government deciding "yes" or "no" on this topic. It's a religious question and it is not the government's domain. The government has a responsibility to provide equal rights to all citizens, so I favor civil unions, however, I favor it for all couples who wish to file their taxes jointly (etc.), not just gay couples. Whether two people get married is up to their particular faith and congregation to decide. It's not for me or any law to dictate to them how to practice their faith (unless their faith involves breaking all kinds of other laws with, say, ritual human sacrifice).
Fridays
06-27-2011, 05:49 PM
gay people rape too.....gay people murder other people too...
lets stop putting gay people on a pedestal just because they are a sexual minority.
Except the few really well done gay porn movies... being gay is not that glamorous.
bem401
06-27-2011, 05:50 PM
They put same-sex to differentiate it. Commonly, marriage is used to refer to heterosexual marriage since that's the most common. That's why when people are talking about homosexuals, they often put "same-sex" in front of it to make it a point that they're talking about homosexuals, not heterosexuals. But you don't need the term "same-sex" in front of the word. This is really just a poor argument all around - come on, man.
And you've still completely ignored about 5 posts in which I say that religion did not invent marriage and has no rights to the action/term/definition. The definition has been changed a million times - as I've also pointed out and showed that homosexual marriage is nothing new - why are we supposed to back off once the church decides to make it a sacrament?
For the last few thousand years, marriage was between a man and a woman and generally performed in a church. The "same-sex" modifier is necessary because any time you say marriage, it is assumed to mean a man and a woman. As far as the first marriages, I've tried to look that up and found nothing conclusive about who, when, and where it was created but it has been a significant function of the church for centuries to the point where it is a sacrament. You provided no evidence either that it wasn't initiated as a church function.
Why do you object to same rights-different name?
4everresolutions
06-27-2011, 05:50 PM
In the USA, if you go down to a courthouse, can't you get married there? Or is that refereed to as a Civil Union?
If a Government body will perform a marriage, then they should do so to all couples who are consenting adults. Regardless of orientation.
4everresolutions
06-27-2011, 05:51 PM
gay people rape too.....
hello?!
WTF?!?!?!?!?
:eyes budge out of head:
Edit: After I quoted this post I saw the OP went and edited and added more to their post. Originally, this is all that was posted.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 05:53 PM
For the last few thousand years, marriage was between a man and a woman and generally performed in a church. The "same-sex" modifier is necessary because any time you say marriage, it is assumed to mean a man and a woman. As far as the first marriages, I've tried to look that up and found nothing conclusive about who, when, and where it was created but it has been a significant function of the church for centuries to the point where it is a sacrament. You provided no evidence either that it wasn't initiated as a church function.
Why do you object to same rights-different name?
Really? You think marriage was invented by the church? I have to point out specifically the history books that talk about it in times before the church even existed? Are you serious?
I'm just against your reasoning for this. You've provided no good reason for it. You say that it should be a different name as to not associate it with a church sacrament that doesn't agree with the action. You try to say that marriage was a sacrament before the country existed. I'm telling you that marriage was around long before the church decided it was important enough to declare an official sacrament. So why should we respect their "right" to the term and definition? You want marriage to stay the same way it's been "for time immemorial" - marriage has been sooo different in sooo many ways and sooo many times in sooo many places.
bem401
06-27-2011, 06:02 PM
In the USA, if you go down to a courthouse, can't you get married there? Or is that refereed to as a Civil Union?
If a Government body will perform a marriage, then they should do so to all couples who are consenting adults. Regardless of orientation.
Not if it doesn't meet the definition of the word "marriage" as understood by the majority of the population. And then what's next? Three people, relatives? Should 2 same sex first cousins be allowed to marry? If not, why not? If yes, then why not 2 opposite sex first cousins? I know these are extremes but lines need to be drawn and defended and IMO marriage should be only between two unrelated consenting adults of the opposite sex. I'm not trying to deny rights or benefits to anyone. I'm just in favor of preserving what I've been raised to define a marriage as.
bem401
06-27-2011, 06:05 PM
Really? You think marriage was invented by the church? I have to point out specifically the history books that talk about it in times before the church even existed? Are you serious?
I'm just against your reasoning for this. You've provided no good reason for it. You say that it should be a different name as to not associate it with a church sacrament that doesn't agree with the action. You try to say that marriage was a sacrament before the country existed. I'm telling you that marriage was around long before the church decided it was important enough to declare an official sacrament. So why should we respect their "right" to the term and definition? You want marriage to stay the same way it's been "for time immemorial" - marriage has been sooo different in sooo many ways and sooo many times in sooo many places.
Why do you insist on calling it marriage if it isn't to antagonize the opposition if and when all the rights and benefits are convened upon such unions?
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 06:06 PM
Not if it doesn't meet the definition of the word "marriage" as understood by the majority of the population. And then what's next? Three people, relatives? Should 2 same sex first cousins be allowed to marry? If not, why not? If yes, then why not 2 opposite sex first cousins? I know these are extremes but lines need to be drawn and defended and IMO marriage should be only between two unrelated consenting adults of the opposite sex. I'm not trying to deny rights or benefits to anyone. I'm just in favor of preserving what I've been raised to define a marriage as.
It's hilarious when people try to say that "gay marriage" is like the political gateway drug to polygamy/incest/bestiality - things that are completely different and illegal for different reasons. Besides, I thought you were all for them having the exact same rights as heterosexual couples, just using a different term. Why would them using the term marriage suddenly make the order of the world go to hell but using a different term with the same rights would be ok? This is just getting more and more stupid by the second.
Because gay unions contradict the very definition of the word "marriage". Why is that so hard to understand? Afford such unions all the civil rights and benefits, just don't call it the same as a Christian sacrament. I bet you'd object to things done that might offend Muslims, minorities, or gays, why not to things offensive to Christians and/or conservatives, especially when no one is being short-changed benefit-wise in the process?
Or change marriage so it includes same sex unions, that way only the bigots dont get what they want.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 06:08 PM
Why do you insist on calling it marriage if it isn't to antagonize the opposition if and when all the rights and benefits are convened upon such unions?
Because there is NO POINT in not calling it a marriage. I want to call it a marriage because it is one. Not to antagonize anyone but to just call it what it is. Your only argument is that calling it what the church calls it would be disrespectful - therefore it would antagonize them. It shouldn't antagonize them because it's not disrespectful. You can't disrespect their "ownership" of marriage and the term and definition if they don't own it.
bem401
06-27-2011, 06:17 PM
It's hilarious when people try to say that "gay marriage" is like the political gateway drug to polygamy/incest/bestiality - things that are completely different and illegal for different reasons. Besides, I thought you were all for them having the exact same rights as heterosexual couples, just using a different term. Why would them using the term marriage suddenly make the order of the world go to hell but using a different term with the same rights would be ok? This is just getting more and more stupid by the second.
Your just avoiding the question I asked. Why not polygamy? Why not gay cousins? What would YOUR objection be to those if you support gay unions?
I say give them the same rights, just don't call it what I was taught and have come to know as a religious sacrament. Is that asking too much of gay people to make that concession in return for a recognition of their unions?
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 06:23 PM
Polygamy/incest is not the issue here. Those are 2 completely different things. My opinion on either is not needed and it would just start a whole different subject. How are you even comparing these to gay marriage? And if you think gay marriage is the "gateway drug" to these other kinds of marriages, why would calling it something other than marriage prevent them? Why is the term "marriage" going to spark these other cases to rise up? If you give them the same rights and call it something else, won't the polygamists/incestuous people just want their unions to be legalized and just given their own name? Gay marriage and polygamy/incest are all completely different things. Gay marriage is not going to lead to polygamous gay marriage because polygamy is against the law. Gay marriage is not going to lead to gay cousins getting married because incest is against the law. I mean, really, what is your point here? :O
By why does the church even care if they use the word? Like I said, it's not their word, their action, or their definition. Why should gay people "concede" to a demand for respect for "their" institution when it's not their institution?
Your just avoiding the question I asked. Why not polygamy? Why not gay cousins? What would YOUR objection be to those if you support gay unions?
I say give them the same rights, just don't call it what I was taught and have come to know as a religious sacrament. Is that asking too much of gay people to make that concession in return for a recognition of their unions?
Yes, it is. There is zero reason to give bigots any concessions at all.
bem401
06-27-2011, 06:27 PM
The point is once you start eating away at something there is no end to it. If gays get their way here, it will only be a matter of time before polygamists and cousins will come forward. Just out of curiosity, is homosexuality between relatives actually considered incest. Once concessions start being made, it becomes tough to stop other concessions from being demanded.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 06:27 PM
And if you really must know what my objections to them would be if I'm pro-gay marriage - the answer is, I have none. I'm not going to get into my reasoning as to why gay marriage/polygamy/cousin marriage are not wrong in my eyes because I KNOW it will start a whole new world of hate and anger. But no, I'm not avoiding the question because I can't defend my answer. My answer is: I have no objections.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 06:30 PM
The point is once you start eating away at something there is no end to it. If gays get their way here, it will only be a matter of time before polygamists and cousins will come forward. Just out of curiosity, is homosexuality between relatives actually considered incest. Once concessions start being made, it becomes tough to stop other concessions from being demanded.
But in your giving them all the same rights, they are getting their way. You're not explaining why the term "marriage" is going to bring forward polygamy/incest. By you stating that "if the gays get their way, where will it stop" you should essentially be against gays having the same rights. There's no reason why giving them the same rights and a different term would not spark polygamy/incest to step forward, but using the term would. That just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to think that gays being allowed marriage would make polygamy/incest an issue anyway... they all have completely different factors, so this is just silly.
And, if you were truly curious, I would assume that homosexuality between relatives would be considered incest - why wouldn't it be?
bem401
06-27-2011, 06:31 PM
Yes, it is. There is zero reason to give bigots any concessions at all.
You demonstrate far more bigotry than anyone else in the thread. No one here has resorted to any name-calling except the people on your side. People try to explain why they have an issue with it and you resort to trash-talk. None of us advocated denying any rights to gays or called gays any names so where do you get off calling them bigots? Calling someone names when you disagree with them is a sign of a lack of intelligence.
lopaw
06-27-2011, 06:31 PM
After pages of interesting debate (except for the incredulously idiotic OP's drivel), it's interesting the polar opposite reasons for some of us not wanting to use the word "marriage" to describe gay unions.
I'll leave it at that.
And yes.....straight people ruin EVERYTHING. ;D
dlabtot
06-27-2011, 06:32 PM
Whether you are gay, straight, or something else, marriage is a bad idea.
But I voted yes.
bem401
06-27-2011, 06:33 PM
But in your giving them all the same rights, they are getting their way. You're not explaining why the term "marriage" is going to bring forward polygamy/incest. By you stating that "if the gays get their way, where will it stop" you should essentially be against gays having the same rights. There's no reason why giving them the same rights and a different term would not spark polygamy/incest to step forward, but using the term would. That just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to think that gays being allowed marriage would make polygamy/incest an issue anyway... they all have completely different factors, so this is just silly.
In your mind no, but in the mind of people looking to live that lifestyle, perhaps yes and IMO, a chance not worth taking..
eagle2
06-27-2011, 06:35 PM
For the last few thousand years, marriage was between a man and a woman and generally performed in a church. The "same-sex" modifier is necessary because any time you say marriage, it is assumed to mean a man and a woman. As far as the first marriages, I've tried to look that up and found nothing conclusive about who, when, and where it was created but it has been a significant function of the church for centuries to the point where it is a sacrament. You provided no evidence either that it wasn't initiated as a church function.
Why do you object to same rights-different name?
No it wasn't. Polygamy is still practiced in some Muslim countries. It was also practiced in Utah in the 19th century, and there are still some people there that practice it today.
Aurora_Sunset
06-27-2011, 06:37 PM
Really? I wonder how many people who think gay marriage will lead to an uprising in polygamy/incest have actually talked to people wishing to legally practice polygamy or incest and know that they think that once gay marriage is approved that's their opening to argue for civil rights... you know, because 2 men getting married is so similar to two relatives getting married or a man marrying 7 women...
These are all totally different issue with totally different arguments for and against them. If these people want rights, they'll fight for them regardless of the position of gay marriage. You still have yet to explain why the term would make a difference in their uprising...