Same-Sex Marriage

[meol]

I personally disagree with it, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't mind it. Tolerance doesn't mean you like something, it means you deal with it.

What do you disagree with, exactly?

[1_man_army]

My general rule is, if it involves consenting adults and doesn't have any direct negative consequences on other people then it is nobody elses business. Same sex marriage falls under that umbrella.

[Donkeykong23]

No I don't support it.

 

I try to steer clear from gays.

[Pirate_Felix]

No I don't support it.

 

I try to steer clear from gays.

Why?

[Rebdragon]

What right does the government have to force an international organization like the Church to offer a service if it doesn't want to? Can the gov go up to some random guy and force him to be a hotdog vendor? How can the government mandate the services of private organizations? The Church doesn't want to offer same-sex marriage in it's churches. Who is it that can tell them they have to? You an argue right and wrong all you want but legally speaking it doesn't make any sense.

 

I just thought of this argument but I'm sure it's been made before and I'm sure someone here who gets off to politics already has a prewritten counterargument. Oh well.

[Azvareth]

Surprising that so many people here are against it. I don't know a single person in my country that doesn't support it, including myself. Gays are awesome.

[Will H]

I personally think we should just leave marriage, as it had been defined in the past, as the civil union between a man and a woman. Call the civil union between two men or two women something else and make it equivalent. I believe the term 'Civil Partnership' has worked quite well.

 

Religion has nothing to do with what makes any civil union between two people what it really is, it's merely added optional ornaments to the point that people think that it's relevant. A church can choose not to engage with Civil Partnerships, but there are ways to establish a civil union without the interference of a church.

 

It's simply a matter of definitions, and definitions are arbitrary.

[Madmanpur3]

I have several gay friends and would like to see it legalized someday but as Reb said, it's not really something the Government can force upon churches. So at best gays would be allowed civil unions, which isn't really what they're after, they're after the benefits that marriage bring...benefits that private organizations/companies have the right to refuse them.

 

Now I'm not positive on all the laws involved, but here's my stance - allow homosexuals to live together*, be allowed to adopt, and receive the same federal benefits**. If they're provided all of that, and they're truly in love, they shouldn't give a rip whether or not they're technically married, because love is supposed to be beyond that right?

 

*I believe it's currently illegal in some states for an unmarried couple to reside together (obviously it's not enforced very strictly, but still can be enforced by landlords).

**This is another debate in itself because federal benefits don't come from nowhere, they come from tax dollars...so the more people receiving benefits the more tax dollars it is and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be happy with that.

[Arcantica]

What right does the government have to force an international organization like the Church to offer a service if it doesn't want to? Can the gov go up to some random guy and force him to be a hotdog vendor? How can the government mandate the services of private organizations? The Church doesn't want to offer same-sex marriage in it's churches. Who is it that can tell them they have to? You an argue right and wrong all you want but legally speaking it doesn't make any sense.

 

I just thought of this argument but I'm sure it's been made before and I'm sure someone here who gets off to politics already has a prewritten counterargument. Oh well.

 

 

They're not trying to force any church to marry same sex couples. That is a choice the government cannot make for anyone. A preacher or church can turn down any couple they don't want to marry for any reason. Legalizing same sex marriage isn't about trying to force a religion to accept something they don't want to, its about getting the government to recognize it, not the church. You don't even need the 'church' to get married these days. Christianity does not own the concept of marriage.

 

You say why should the government be able to force something on people they don't want to accept? But by banning same sex marriage your doing the exact same thing, because like I said before, some churches and religious groups do support same sex marriage, and by banning it, your infringing on their beliefs as well.

 

Which is why the government should either recognize no marriages, or accept them all.

[Skull]

I support it. It's legal where I live anyways.

[Madmanpur3]

Legalizing same sex marriage isn't about trying to force a religion to accept something they don't want to, its about getting the government to recognize it, not the church. You don't even need the 'church' to get married these days.

But church recognized marriages is where a lot of the benefits come from...

[Dizzle229]

I personally disagree with it, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't mind it. Tolerance doesn't mean you like something, it means you deal with it.

What do you disagree with, exactly?

 

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. To me, it does somewhat devalue church recognized marriage.

 

Like I said though, it's not like they're doing anything wrong, and I don't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

[magekillr]

Legalizing same sex marriage isn't about trying to force a religion to accept something they don't want to, its about getting the government to recognize it, not the church. You don't even need the 'church' to get married these days.

But church recognized marriages is where a lot of the benefits come from...

 

What? No it's not. The benefits come from the state, not the Church. That's what this entire debate is about: recognition by the state. Couples could get married right now in a UCC, but they wouldn't be looked at equally under the law. It's about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and due process of law.

 

As arc_druid stated, not every religion is hostile to gay marriage, what about THEIR religious freedom? Aren't you infringing on their beliefs?

[Arcantica]

Legalizing same sex marriage isn't about trying to force a religion to accept something they don't want to, its about getting the government to recognize it, not the church. You don't even need the 'church' to get married these days.

But church recognized marriages is where a lot of the benefits come from...

 

I'm not too sure about that one, a courthouse wedding seems just as valid as a church one. I don't think there is any specific benefits, not major ones anyways, that are for weddings that have specifically went through the church.

 

Even if you get married through a church, that marriage still isn't valid (legally) until you get the marriage license from the government.

[Socc]

Question here, religion is the biggest opposition against same sex marriage right?

 

No, Republican is.

 

Honestly, I say let them have it. Allow same sex couples to be married, just don't make out or something in front of me. I'll support you, but the world needs time to adjust to that change.

[Kenshinjapan]

Question here, religion is the biggest opposition against same sex marriage right?

 

No, Republican is.

 

 

Well that wasn't a cheap shot...

[Lenin64]

I personally think we should just leave marriage, as it had been defined in the past, as the civil union between a man and a woman. Call the civil union between two men or two women something else and make it equivalent. I believe the term 'Civil Partnership' has worked quite well.

 

Religion has nothing to do with what makes any civil union between two people what it really is, it's merely added optional ornaments to the point that people think that it's relevant. A church can choose not to engage with Civil Partnerships, but there are ways to establish a civil union without the interference of a church.

 

It's simply a matter of definitions, and definitions are arbitrary.

They should call it manriage. Because they're both men. Or women, but nobody cares.

[Alg]

I don't see any problems with it. Cynical joke about heterosexual divorce rates omitted :razz:

 

Though it probably isn't a good idea to force churches to preform the ceremonies. But as said before that's not an issue because it's the state that controls it. And that's apparently how California's working it out, so... :D

[cultjunky]

Madampur3 said

 

"**This is another debate in itself because federal benefits don't come from nowhere, they come from tax dollars...so the more people receiving benefits the more tax dollars it is and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be happy with that."

 

since when was getting married free?

 

Here in the UK, same sex couple have a 'civil partnership' ceremony at a local registrar, which infers on the couple similar legal status as a heterosexual married couple, such as inheritance laws, or having the right to impose a DNR should something tragic happen.

 

AND YOU PAY THE GOVERNMENT, indirectly, I'll grant you, but that's still a big tax revenue for the state.

 

Equally, many benefits, such as unemployment and sickness, are not given to individuals if their legal partner has a reasonable salary, so in effect, the state is paying less! Unless I'm wrong (which i could be and will be happy to be corrected) this is true of benefits in th USA too

 

If some fool, be they gay or staight wants to commit themselves to a lifetime of picking up someone elses socks/dishes etc, then let them have a party lol

 

CJ

[Socc]

Question here, religion is the biggest opposition against same sex marriage right?

 

No, Republican is.

 

 

Well that wasn't a cheap shot...

 

Not really... The Republican party is one of, if not, the largest group against it.

[warri0r45]

I have absolutely no problem with it. To me, this is one of those things where it's not anyone else's business. I don't think something like this should be able to be illegal, as I see it as a personal choice. If someone doesn't like it, too bad. It's not like it affects them in any way.

 

Exactly my thoughts. It's really not that big of a deal to me. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, I don't mind.

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

I personally disagree with it, but it doesn't really affect me, so I don't mind it. Tolerance doesn't mean you like something, it means you deal with it.

 

I've seen so many South Park references from you...It's insane.

Needless to say, keep it up.

 

That is so couragous

[RexMilotic]

What right does the government have to force an international organization like the Church to offer a service if it doesn't want to? Can the gov go up to some random guy and force him to be a hotdog vendor? How can the government mandate the services of private organizations? The Church doesn't want to offer same-sex marriage in it's churches. Who is it that can tell them they have to? You an argue right and wrong all you want but legally speaking it doesn't make any sense.

 

I just thought of this argument but I'm sure it's been made before and I'm sure someone here who gets off to politics already has a prewritten counterargument. Oh well.

 

If it wasn't for the government telling the church to think while using common sense, then we wouldn't have the abiility to have multi colored marriages, or people of different religions marry. Marriage gives legal benefits, and church and state are separated, so the whole benefit part is actually the government and not the church. Legally speaking, the Church shouldn't have the ability to say who is allowed to be married, because marriage is a legal contract, not religious. It is not religion who started the idea of religion, it's just something that people view as religious for some insane reason.

 

I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. To me, it does somewhat devalue church recognized marriage.

 

Like I said though, it's not like they're doing anything wrong, and I don't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

Church recognized marriages mean nothing in the legal system. To receive benefits you need a state issued marriage license, which can be obtained without having an a wedding. Currently that is not even offered to same-sex couples, and the kind are similar are not recognized everywhere not give the same benefits of marriage.

 

I have several gay friends and would like to see it legalized someday but as Reb said, it's not really something the Government can force upon churches. So at best gays would be allowed civil unions, which isn't really what they're after, they're after the benefits that marriage bring...benefits that private organizations/companies have the right to refuse them.

 

Now I'm not positive on all the laws involved, but here's my stance - allow homosexuals to live together*, be allowed to adopt, and receive the same federal benefits**. If they're provided all of that, and they're truly in love, they shouldn't give a rip whether or not they're technically married, because love is supposed to be beyond that right?

 

*I believe it's currently illegal in some states for an unmarried couple to reside together (obviously it's not enforced very strictly, but still can be enforced by landlords).

**This is another debate in itself because federal benefits don't come from nowhere, they come from tax dollars...so the more people receiving benefits the more tax dollars it is and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be happy with that.

 

The government is not forcing it upon churches, because getting marriage doesn't need to be taken place inside of a church. The point of same-sex marriage is so that gay couples can receive the same rights as heterosexual couples. Love is important yes, but those benefits obtained from marriage are extremely important,.

[Th3_Crusader]

Obviously since I am gay I support it. When I told my family, they all told me "God hate's gays" and all that crap, but I don't understand that when my whole life I was taught and raised that God loved everyone. I don't see a thing wrong with same sex relationships/marriage. All we want is to be happy and live our lives.

[Giordano]

I think a better question for the time being is the church's role in paying taxes. I've heard churches don't have to pay taxes, but then I heard they do.